Month: February 2013

Chapter 4: Republicans Have Very Strange Ideas

by tristero

Rubio says there is nothing the US government can do to deal with global warming.

Responding to Rick Perry

Texas Governor Rick Perry has undertaken an initiative to steal away jobs from California. First came an a small ad buy in California, followed by a personal tour of California in which he met with a number of business owners around the state encouraging them to move to Texas. Californians aren’t terribly worried about it, though:

California officials, however, aren’t that concerned. Business relocations account for only .03% of annual job losses and the state is doing well economically, according to the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development.

“I can understand why Rick Perry is interested in California. We were the national jobs leader for most of the last year with 257,000 new private sector jobs,” said Kish Rajan, the office’s director. “Real job creation comes from California’s history as a national leader in start-ups and the expansion of homegrown businesses.”

Jerry Brown himself was even less kind:

“It’s not a serious story, guys,” the Democratic governor told reporters at a business event here. “It’s not a burp. It’s barely a fart.”

The ad buy Perry announced Monday is relatively small, at about $24,000, but it gained widespread attention in the media. Brown called the amount “the smallest entry into the media market of California.”

“If they want to get in the game, let them spend $25 million on radio and television,” Brown said. “Then I’ll take them seriously.”

Still, some communities may be directly affected by Perry’s overtures. One of those is the city of Oxnard, where Rick Perry is attempting to steal away the planned $20 million expansion of Haas Automation, a machining company located in Oxnard. Perry met with owner Gene Haas yesterday, and yours truly was on hand to protest. The Ventura County Democratic Party (of which I’m the Chair) also issued the following statement:

Ventura County Democrats hope that Texas Governor Rick Perry will learn from California’s recent success how he can improve his state’s dismal record on poverty, wages, education standards and social services. The Golden State has the most Fortune 500 companies of any in the nation, with over 100,000 new businesses started every year. We’re confident that despite Rick Perry’s effort to steal away the fruits of California’s labor to prop up the hollow Texan economy, California businesses will see past his empty promises and continue to enjoy California’s warm, prosperous and demand-driven economic climate.

It’s also worth noting that Gene Haas went to prison for tax evasion and witness intimidation. There’s little doubt that Rick Perry targeted him as someone particularly sensitive to tax issues.

But as Greg LeRoy persuasively argues in his excellent book The Great American Jobs Scam, most companies don’t actually make their location and expansion decisions based on tax and incentive policies. They do so based on a variety of other factors, including education, cost of living, quality of life, and many others. They simply pretend to make decisions on that basis in order to force competing communities into concessions that ultimately won’t significantly affect the final decision.

It’s more than likely that Gene Haas is playing the same game: using the attention to play Texas and California off one another to extract concessions that won’t ultimately affect his final decision.

Regardless, the proper way to respond to the predations of red state governors like Rick Perry is to point out the egregious failures in their own states. Failures like high poverty rates, low wages and inadequate education standards. There is no reason for blue states to be on the defensive when the likes of Rick Perry come calling. Blue states tend to be the leaders in innovation and high-wage job growth, while red states hollow out their economies with low wages and low quality of life. No matter where they live, either to defend their own states or to change them, progressives shouldn’t shy away from saying so.

.

True believers will wait for The Rapture

by digby

In the post below I mused about why the Republicans aren’t yet ready to change and suspected they were waiting for “their” DLC to form itself. Greg Sargent thinks otherwise, and he’s probably right:

Rubio explicitly said that Republicans were proceeding from the assumption that Obama’s policies would fail later. Rubio added: “We have to at least have the credibility to say: ‘We told you this wouldn’t work; here’s a better alternative.’”

In this context, the decision to change nothing suddenly makes sense. If these policies are bound to fail, simply continuing to argue against them, as Republicans are now doing, could conceivably be enough. Republicans would later be able to say: We told you so. We told you Obama’s Big Government policies would fail. Time to try the limited government approach we’ve been arguing for all along. Buying in to Obama’s policies by compromising would muddy these waters.

That’s the stance of true believers. After all, conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed. So stick to the program and as soon as the Democrats’ nefarious plans blow up in our faces, we’ll be there with conservatism to save the day.

.

Waiting for their DLC

by digby

I realize that David Frum is probably dismissed with a snarl among the true believers, but the Villagers really should pay attention to writings about the GOP these days.  For instance, today he points out that for all of Marco Rubio’s soothing, Hispanic tone, he’s as hardcore as they come (as Aaron Blake illustrates here.). This “re-branding” is as phony as it gets:

No question too that Marco Rubio puts a more appealing face on the party than we’ve seen in some long time.

But here’s where, from my point of view, the Rubio reply fell short.

* He’s still talking about fixing the economy by fixing the deficit, rather than the other way around: fix the deficit by fixing the economy.

* He’s still using “growth” as code for tax cuts aimed at upper-income groups, rather than as a broader agenda that does include tax reform, but that also includes measures to relieve household debt and vigorously expansionary monetary policy.

* He’s still signed up for the program of cutting social benefits right away and postponing Medicare reforms to later. It seems to me that here again the priority should be reversed. The sooner we restrain the growth of healthcare costs, the better. But cutting unemployment insurance and food stamps while more than 12 million remain unemployed is a formula both for unnecessary personal hardship and for fiscal drag that will slow recovery.

Thus far, Rubio-ism is merely Ryanism with a human face.

This is why, for all the talk of a schism in the Party,  I don’t think they’ve lost enough yet to do a true retrenchment. Simply eating tacos and telling stories about the old country isn’t going to cut it.

I guess they’re waiting for their DLC. If it happens (and I emphasize if) I hope the Democrats will be willing to take a mile for every inch they give. It sure worked like a charm for the Republicans over the past 25 years.

.

It could happen to you too.

Guest post by Jon Stokes

My pregnant wife just called me a few hours ago from SFO as she was boarding an airplane to Austin, TX. “I got an email from Chase saying that our checking account is overdrawn, and all our assets are frozen. None of our cards work. They gave me some number to call.”

Of course, I flipped out. But I also knew immediately what had happened. I’m currently disputing a laughably bogus 2007 income tax bill with the MA Department of Revenue, a state in which I have not lived or earned income in since 2003. I live in CA, and the Chase account in question was opened in Chicago. But I had a sinking feeling that, in the world of the multinational megabank, niceties like state borders don’t matter anymore. My guess was that MA had called Chase (they have not sued me or sent me any sort of court order) and Chase just handed over all our assets there to MA.

A call to the number provided, a visit to my local branch, and ultimately an on-the-record discussion with someone from Chase’s executive office confirmed that I was mostly right. The MA Department of Revenue had filed a levy against me in MA, and when the state notified Chase of the levy, Chase dutifully froze everything but (lucky me!) has not yet transfered any money out. The perky Chase lady on the phone told me that on March 4, unless MA has lifted the levy, Chase will clean out my accounts and hand everything over to MA. Again, I have not lived in MA or earned income in that state since 2003, and I worked with a CPA to pay all of my state and federal 2007 taxes in full and on time. I did everything 100% by the book, and yet here I am in 2013, with a negative bank balance and frozen assets.

Welcome to America, 2013, where bankrupt states aggressively pursue long-gone former residents with insane tax bills and levies, and where the banks, as a matter of official policy, will hand over every last dime in your account without even knowing or caring whether the request is valid and enforceable.

Here’s a bit more background, so you can understand how crazy this all is.

I moved from Massachusetts to Illinois in 2003, and I opened my Chase account there in 2005. I also hired a CPA and dutifully paid all of my state and local tax, in full, every year including 2007. I moved further west to California in 2008, so imagine my shock when in January of last year, I got a letter from the MA Department of Revenue claiming that I owed them a jaw-dropping sum for 2007. Again, I hadn’t lived there or worked there since 2003, but I did own part of a business that was headquartered in MA, and the state was using this fact to harass me for income tax money. How much money? At least 10X what I’d actually owe them if I really did owe them income tax for 2007; or, to put it another way, roughly 10X what I paid Illinois in 2007 on the advice of my Illinois CPA.

I didn’t just let this nasty MA tax claim ride, thinking it would go away. I put my California CPA to work on it, I hired a tax attorney in MA, and I even hired a CPA malpractice attorney to go after my Illinois CPA on the slim chance that Massachusetts is actually right and I do owe them something. I filed appeals, submitted papers, and generally stayed on top of it. So I wasn’t overly alarmed when a few weeks ago, the MA Dept. of Revenue sent me a notice that they were filing a tax lien against me with the MA Secretary of State’s office. But I didn’t freak out, because hey, this is part of an ongoing dispute where they’re clearly way out of line, and I have some very good people working with me on this… and besides, I don’t own any property in MA, so what are they going to do?

And then, without even sending me a copy of any kind of court order or document, they’ve suddenly frozen and are on the verge of confiscating all of the funds in my out-of-state bank account.

After talking to Chase, my next call was to the MA tax attorney that I’d hired to fight with MA over their insane tax bill.

“I’ve dealt with this once before, with Bank of America. And the guy was in California, just like you. Chase Manhattan is not supposed to freeze an out-of-state account like this, and MA knows it. But MA does this because they know they can get away with it.”

I then headed down to my local Chase branch, and where I talked to their legal department and got them to confirm that this is their policy. I also played the journalist card and got them to put me in touch with someone from their executive office who could speak on the record.

“The management stands behind the decision to freeze your account,” she said. She argued that because Chase has a minor presence in MA (a few non-branch offices), they’re subject to MA jurisdiction and have to comply with the order to freeze my account, regardless of where the account was opened or is currently located. She also said that I had agreed to all of this madness when signing up for the account, as part of Chase’s terms of service.

Apparently, my contract with Chase stipulates that Chase will turn over any of my assets to anyone who comes knocking with any kind of official-looking levy or lien, and Chase “does not have to determine whether the legal process [behind the request] is valid or enforceable.” They just hand over all your money, and if the request was bogus then that’s not their problem, it’s yours.

There is nothing I can do at this point but file an appeal with MA, and hope the freeze gets lifted before Chase turns over our frozen assets on March 4th.

And I’m one of the lucky ones. We use a foreign bank for the vast majority of our assets, and keep only a small amount in Chase for bills and such. Even if Chase hands over all of the money in our accounts to MA, the worst thing that wil happen is that my wife will be stuck in Austin for three days with only an American Express card (which hopefully still works) and/or that I’ll have to send her some of the cash we keep on-hand for emergencies via Western Union. Oh, and I’ll have to pay a ton of legal fees to recover the money, which would probably end up costing me more than MA took. So I may just have to let MA rob my bank account, with the bank’s help, of course.

.

by digby

… goes to CNN

CUOMO: He said it would be deficit-neutral, though.

BORGER: He did say. And where is the money coming from? Question, minimum wage, you know, this is an increase in the minimum wage, has not kept track with inflation. How are we going to pay for these things? What’s the price tag?

You learn something new every day. I didn’t know that the minimum wage was a big contributor to the deficit. Now millions and millions of Americans assume that it does.

Good work CNN.

I didn’t watch the speech until this morning. It sounded like many others and I hope that he follows through on some of it and that he doesn’t follow through on some of it  — as usual. however, someone drew my attention to an interesting little (apparently spontaneous) change from the text:

PREPARED TEXT: 

After all, why would we choose to make deeper cuts to education and Medicare just to protect special interest tax breaks? How is that fair? How does that promote growth?

ACTUAL TEXT: 

After all, why would we choose to make deeper cuts to education and Medicare just to protect special interest tax breaks? How is that fair? Why is that deficit reduction is a big emergency justifying cuts in Social Security benefits, but not closing some loopholes? How does that promote growth?

The larger point of that passage is, of course, that we must get some more chump change from closing loopholes and tax breaks (until the lobbyists find ways to open them again) if we’re going to cut education, Medicare and Social Security. I’m not sure who he’s holding that negotiation with, but the last time I looked the Republicans aren’t the ones who keep insisting these things be on the menu. After all, the president could make this point by saying, “why would we choose to make deeper cuts to defense just to protect special interests? Why is it that deficit reduction is a big emergency justifying cuts in meat inspection and Head Start but not closing some loopholes?” That would at least represent the cuts that are actually in the sequester.

Anyway, we know that cutting SS and medicare in exchange for some illusory tax reform is the president’s patented “balanced approach.” It’s telling, however, that he put Social Security in the speech when it wasn’t in the text. I’d have to guess that they had haggled over whether it was smart to include it and he changed his mind at the last minute. Maybe that indicates some tension among his advisers about this. I hope so.

.

The State of the Union Demands More Discretionary Spending. Good.

by David Atkins

President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union address was oddly compelling. On the one hand the President reiterated his singular obsession with the deficit and curbing earned benefits; but on the other were some welcome major calls for increased discretionary spending. Among them were a jobs program:

A year and a half ago, I put forward an American Jobs Act that independent economists said would create more than one million new jobs. I thank the last Congress for passing some of that agenda, and I urge this Congress to pass the rest.

Increases to science research and development:

Every dollar we invested to map the human genome returned $140 to our economy. Today, our scientists are mapping the human brain to unlock the answers to Alzheimer’s; developing drugs to regenerate damaged organs; devising new material to make batteries ten times more powerful. Now is not the time to gut these job-creating investments in science and innovation. Now is the time to reach a level of research and development not seen since the height of the Space Race.

A number of items to combat climate change, including cap-and-trade and executive actions that will necessitate spending on green energy programs and climate change mitigation:

The good news is, we can make meaningful progress on this issue while driving strong economic growth. I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.

Solar energy expansion, which will necessarily involve increased subsidies:

Four years ago, other countries dominated the clean energy market and the jobs that came with it. We’ve begun to change that. Last year, wind energy added nearly half of all new power capacity in America. So let’s generate even more. Solar energy gets cheaper by the year – so let’s drive costs down even further. As long as countries like China keep going all-in on clean energy, so must we.

An Energy Security Trust to fund green tech R&D:

Indeed, much of our new-found energy is drawn from lands and waters that we, the public, own together. So tonight, I propose we use some of our oil and gas revenues to fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good. If a non-partisan coalition of CEOs and retired generals and admirals can get behind this idea, then so can we.

Infrastructure improvements:

I propose a “Fix-It-First” program to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent repairs, like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country. And to make sure taxpayers don’t shoulder the whole burden, I’m also proposing a Partnership to Rebuild America that attracts private capital to upgrade what our businesses need most: modern ports to move our goods; modern pipelines to withstand a storm; modern schools worthy of our children. Let’s prove that there is no better place to do business than the United States of America. And let’s start right away.

Universal Pre-K (!):

Tonight, I propose working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every child in America. Every dollar we invest in high-quality early education can save more than seven dollars later on – by boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing violent crime. In states that make it a priority to educate our youngest children, like Georgia or Oklahoma, studies show students grow up more likely to read and do math at grade level, graduate high school, hold a job, and form more stable families of their own. So let’s do what works, and make sure none of our children start the race of life already behind. Let’s give our kids that chance.

There was much more of interest in the State of the Union, of course. Minimum wage increases, higher education affordability, immigration reform and much more were discussed in what was a mostly progressive tour de force.

But in a speech that began with the usual invocation of the deficit and praise for Simpson-Bowles, the number of proposals guaranteed to increase discretionary spending were somewhat extraordinary. That’s a good thing: the government must do much more with its money than simply protect the poor and the elderly while maintaining a massive standing army. It must continually invest in our future.

The Republicans will stonewall the President’s agenda, of course. But it was still worth making the case, so that voters can decide in 2014 whether they want a path of investment and prosperity, or a path of misery and austerity.

.

If he’s for it, I’m against it

by digby

This is ridiculous:

According to a new Washington Post poll, 70 percent of Americans support a path to citizenship in comprehensive immigration reform, including 60 percent of Republicans. Those results are in line with a slew of polls showing that earned citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants is a popular policy.

But a funny thing happened when Republicans were asked an identical question about citizenship with Obama’s name attached. Republicans hated the idea: Support dropped from 60 percent to just 39 percent.

I know that Democrats are hypocritical when it comes to supporting Obama and the Democrats doing something they previously opposed when a Republican did it. But I’m unaware of them opposing something simply because a Republican supports it. But I could be wrong. If they behave with similar irrationality then they’re idiots too.

There’s an awful lot we genuinely disagree about in this country and it’s often passionately felt. We have different philosophies and values. I accept that this is an ideological fight and I don’t think it’s democratic for our leaders to form phony bipartisan alliances that don’t accurately reflect the wishes of the people who put them in office.

I was no fan of Ronald Reagan. I followed him from his days as governor of California and really believed he was a menace. But I would never have been against something simply because he was for it. Why? Because that’s just stupid.

.

How Deficits Don’t Hurt Unemployment: A Basic Lesson in Economics for Marco Rubio

by David Atkins

It’s hard to overestimate just how foolish is Marco Rubio’s assertion that the deficit causes higher unemployment. Those with basic macroeconomic literacy already understand this, but it’s a pretty simple concept easily explained in four steps.

1. Nations are not like households. If a nation goes into debt it can print more money, or float deficits indefinitely. However, there are potential problems with each. They are, in order:

1a. If a nation prints too much money, it can lead to inflation, which decreases the value of the money a nation prints.

1b. If a nation floats too much debt for too long, it can lead to higher interest rates on the nation’s bonds. This is sort of like an individual’s credit score going down, making it more expensive for them to hold debt on their credit card. If a nation finds it difficult to borrow then it cannot invest in creating government or private sector jobs, which leads to forced austerity.

2. However, The United States is not experiencing either inflation or high interest rates on its debt. The dollar is not inflating at a rapid pace. Meanwhile, treasuries are cheaper than they’ve ever been–i.e., the interest rate on the nation’s credit card is better than ever before. Put in personal terms, there are several agencies that control a nation’s bond rating, just like there are several agencies that control your personal credit score. S&P is like Experian in that sense, and the investors and nations buying U.S. debt are like credit card companies. But what if Experian lowered your credit score, but VISA and American Express starting giving you even better rates on your credit card? It would mean that VISA and American Express don’t trust Experian. That’s what happened when S&P downgraded U.S. credit supposedly because of our deficits: the buyers of U.S. debt didn’t care. So the deficit hasn’t impacted inflation or borrowing costs. It might so do at some point in the future, but it’s not doing so currently nor do we have any reason to believe it will do so in the near future.

3. The deficit is actually shrinking as we speak. Ezra Klein has the stats:

Remember also that the biggest driver of the deficit is the poor economy: fewer consumer purchases lead to fewer revenues in the form of taxes, which in addition to a greater need for social welfare spending to keep people on their feet leads to bigger deficits. In fact, deficits and recessions are intrinsically linked throughout U.S. history. As economic activity and more importantly civilian employment pick up, deficits inexorably shrink.

In addition to the weak economy, our modern deficit is also a product of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy and the multiple wars overseas.

Why is the deficit shrinking? Mostly, because of the pickup in economic activity. The elimination of some of the tax cuts for the wealthy will also help. The Affordable Care Act will also be taking a bite out of our extravagant healthcare costs.

4. None of this has any impact on unemployment. Generally speaking, there are two kinds of jobs: public sector and private sector. Even though the private sector is doing better, public sector jobs are still declining due to conservative policies theoretically designed to reduce deficits. Private sector jobs, meanwhile, depend on consumer demand–not corporate profit. American corporations are experiencing record profits, but they aren’t hiring because there’s not enough middle-class consumer demand for them to hire workers.

4a. The lack of consumer demand leading to poor private-sector job growth in spite of record profits has nothing to do with deficits or uncertainty in the investing climate. It has everything to do with income inequality and economic insecurity among the middle and lower classes.

4b. The obsession over deficits among conservative politicians is directly responsible for public sector job cuts that are helping to drive up the unemployment rate and kill consumer demand.

All of which means that politicians like Marco Rubio who insist that the deficit is directly hurting employment are either so ignorant of economics that they shouldn’t be handling public policy, or so cynically manipulative that they shouldn’t be handling public policy.

And no “reporter” in Washington or elsewhere should be covering Rubio’s statements without providing a basic lesson in macroeconomics as context for his fact-free response.

.

Karl Rove tried to tame his monster — and couldn’t

by digby

In one of the more interesting discussions of the GOP’s current “disarray”, the American Spectator goes after Karl Rove for sabotaging Tea Party candidates. It’s fascinating from beginning to end, but I find, to my dismay, that I have to stick up for Rove in one instance.

The Spectator:

Deception Two: Rove’s effort to marginalize Iowa Republican Congressman Steve King, with Rove lieutenant Steven Law, the head of Rove’s “Conservative Victory Project,” telling the Times that: “We’re concerned about Steve King’s Todd Akin problem.”

What “problem” is that? Back in August of 2012, when l’affaire Akin was burning up the political hot sheets, because King had the audacity to defend his friend Akin by saying politely that he had never heard such a thing as Akin was asserting — namely that a woman could not get pregnant from a rape. Saying as well of his friend’s controversial statement that “I would be open” to discussing the issue. Liberals instantly tried to make this polite admission of intellectual curiosity into something it wasn’t — that King agreed with Akin. When queried the next day, King ridiculed his critics for what they were trying to do, saying this, in a story the Washington Post headlined as: “Steve King: I’m No Todd Akin”:

“The liberal press and their allies have again twisted my words,” he said in a statement. “I never said, nor do I believe, a woman, including minors, cannot get pregnant from rape, statutory rape or incest. Suggesting otherwise is ridiculous, shameful, disgusting and nothing but an attempt to falsely define who I am.”

He added, “I have never heard of and categorically reject the so-called medical theory that launched this controversy.”

So under no circumstances did Steve King ever agree with Akin. Specifically, categorically saying so. And yet — there is Rove’s Steve Law saying that “we’re concerned about Steve King’s Todd Akin problem.” Which of course raises the obvious question: If King never said he agreed with Akin — and specifically said he disagreed with him — why is Rove’s group implying something else?

Being “loyal” to a lunatic by saying that you’d be open to discussing whether women have a special chemical that makes it impossible for them to get pregnant via rape is hardly harmless. But I don’t think that’s what Rove was saying. He was saying that Steve King has a “Todd Akin problem”, meaning that he can’t keep his foot out of his mouth. He could have been more precise and simply said that Todd Akin had a “Steve King problem.”

Steve King is an idiot who constantly embarrasses the party. It’s not just that he’s ideologically extreme, although he is. It’s that he’s a moron who often reveals the Party to be dumb as posts about nearly everything. Here are just four examples and they probably aren’t the worst:

• “I don’t want to disparage anyone because of their race, their ethnicity, their name – whatever their religion their father might have been, I’ll just say this: When you think about the optics of a Barack Obama potentially getting elected President of the United States — I mean, what does this look like to the rest of the world? What does it look like to the world of Islam? I will tell you that, if he is elected president, then the radical Islamists, the al-Qaida, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror. Additionally, his middle name (Hussein) does matter. It matters because they read a meaning into that in the rest of the world.” 

• “There’s been legislation that’s been brought through this House that sets aside benefits for women and minorities. The only people that it excludes are white men…Pretty soon, white men are going to notice they are the ones being excluded.” 

• “The president has demonstrated that he has a default mechanism in him that breaks down the side of race – on the side that favors the black person in the case of Prof. Gates and officer Crowley.< 

• If you can’t profile someone, you can’t use those common sense indicators that are before your very eyes. Now, I think it’s wrong to use racial profiling for the reasons of discriminating against people, but it’s not wrong to use race or other indicators for the sake of identifying people that are violating the law.

Rove is just trying to marginalize the crazy talk that certain members of his Party are so keen to blurt out any time they see a camera. It’s not that he disagrees with them.  He just thinks it should be more subtle about it.

I don’t feel sorry for Rove, of course. He’s one of the Frankensteins who created this monster. And he should know better than anyone that these folks will misconstrue his every utterance and lie about his record and intentions. They listened to all the lessons he taught them.

I can’t tell you how much I’m enjoying the blowback. Nobody deserves it more. I only wish I could see him squirm when the camera pans to Ted Nugent tonight.

Update:  Because this is so good for the Republican Party:

“He probably has shit for brains,” [Nugent] said of Langevin.

Nugent is “one of the most articulate spokesman” for gun advocates, [Congressman Stockman] said, and Stockman said he was “proud” to have him as his guest.

.