McConnell, WTF?: McConnell Says He Favors Allowing States to Declare Bankruptcy in response to coronavirus revenue drops...

Bruce Plante editorial cartoon, Tulsa World, 4/17/2020, Trump Stimulus Check as a campaign device.

Rather than provide financial assistance to state and local governments facing massive deficits because of coronavirus-related economic downturn, according to Politico ("McConnell pushes 'bankruptcy route' as local governments struggle"), Bloomberg ("McConnell Says He Favors Allowing States to Declare Bankruptcy", and other media, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell recommends that states and local governments declare bankruptcy.

This is un-@#$%^&*-believable, astounding, and totally irresponsible, just like when wacko Congressman Ted Yoho stated that the US government defaulting on debt would be no problem in the face of Republican intransigence on either funding government or increasing the debt ceiling ("The Tea Party's Government Default Fantasy," Rolling Stone).

Although his comments are couched in "not wanting to bail out states and their pension problems."  Granted pension problems are a huge issue and overhang, but completely irrelevant to the extraordinary pressures on local and state government financing presented by the response to the coronavirus.

Others smarter and more observant than me have made the point that the reason the Republicans and the Trump Administration don't want to provide funding to states and localities is to coerce them to reopen the economy earlier than public health measures warrant (Trump Wants to Starve States Into Opening Before It's Safe," New York Magazine). From the article:

Trump’s plan to coerce the states into reopening has at least three discernible elements. The first is, or was, the formation of a task force to reopen the country. The purpose of the council was to give Trump cover. The council would prod governors to reopen businesses, and because it would be seen as coming from the business community, Trump himself would not bear the blame for future outbreaks that might result. ...

The second element is the mobilization of protests. The appearance of flag-waving and sometimes gun-toting demonstrators in a handful of state capitols this weekend seems to have come as a shock to the news media, but Trump’s allies signaled this was coming. ...

The protests apply pressure to state governments, mobilizing conservatives to oppose lockdowns and raising using the threat of either passive resistance (by flouting social-distancing rules) or open violence (which Trump teased by linking the cause with the Second Amendment). ...

The final element of the plan is using fiscal starvation to bring the states to heel. Republicans have refused to allow any additional funding for state and local governments in the latest economic relief package. “The thinking among some Trump administration officials is that many states should be reopening their governments soon and that additional funding could deter them from doing so,” ...

It's even been suggested that Georgia is reopening its economy as a stratagem to deny unemployment benefits claims, which are projected to be much higher than the state has funds to pay

These people have to be turned out of office decisively.  I call them anarcholibertarians, almost completely against sound government and governance, except as a way to benefit their financial benefactors.

It's no way to run a country.

Also see by Paul Waldman, Washington Post:

-- "Mitch McConnell to states: drop dead"
-- "The coming GOP plot to sabotage a Biden presidency"
-- "The war against the states."

The Republican Platform and the quest for DC Statehood

Many prognosticators argue that Trump will lose big and this will have negative coat-tail effects on the rest of the ballot, and that it is possible if not likely that Democrats can retake the House of Representatives, as well as the Senate, where there is a good chance for a Democratic majority regardless of how distasteful the Republican presidential candidate happens to be.

I am not so hopeful.  First, the reality is that President Obama's vote tally was suppressed by up to 6% because of race-based voting ("Racial Salience and the Obama Vote" and "Most Say Race Will Not Be a Factor in Their Presidential Vote").  I don't think respondents are being fully honest when they tell poll takers how they'll vote when it comes to Trump vs. Clinton.  

Second, people can distinguish between the top of the ballot and the middle and the bottom, and because Congressional districts have been drawn to favor rural interests, only if the devil himself was running could Democrats win in many of the nation's Congressional districts, since the districts are so rural.

This means that if the Democratic nominee for president wins, and the Senate becomes once again, majority Democratic, it's likely that the House of Representatives will remain in Republican control, albeit with a narrower majority.

So, it will be tough to get DC Statehood (which I am not all that worked up about anyway, "Ho hum: the proposed State of New Columbia Constitution doesn't change very much").  But here's what the Republican Platform has to say about DC proper:

Preserving the District of Columbia
The nation’s capital city is a special responsibility of the federal government because it belongs both to its residents and to all Americans, millions of whom visit it every year. Congressional Republicans have fostered homeownership and open access to higher education for Washington residents. Against the opposition of the current President and leaders of the Democratic Party, they have established and expanded the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, through which thousands of low-income children have been able to attend a school of their choice and receive a quality education.

Republicans have been in the forefront of combating chronic corruption among the city’s top Democratic officials. We call for congressional action to enforce the spirit of the Home Rule Act, assuring minority representation on the City Council. That council, backed by the current mayor, is attempting to seize from the Congress its appropriating power over all funding for the District. The illegality of their action mirrors the unacceptable spike in violent crime and murders currently afflicting the city. We expect Congress to assert, by whatever means necessary, its constitutional prerogatives regarding the District.

[section on expanding access to guns excised]

Statehood for the District can be advanced only by a constitutional amendment. Any other approach would be invalid. A statehood amendment was soundly rejected by the states when last proposed in 1976 and should not be revived.

======
There are many weaknesses in this argument and a lot of puffery.

As far as considering statehood is concerned, plenty of Constitutional Amendments took a long time or a re-do.  Once failed, never again isn't about reason or logic.  Regardless, Congress has no business holding hostage the locally generated and derived budget, which is not a federal undertaking--DC's local government shouldn't be forced to shut down because Congress won't pass a federal budget, etc.

Just as Congress is proud of itself for eliminating earmarks, which has benefits and also disadvantages, a Republican Congress so focused on promoting "local control" and limited government vis a vis the federal government ought to acknowledge their hypocrisy in how they choose to cripple local governance in Washington.

They argue that DC is Constitutionally under the authority of Congress and so that status should remain the case evermore, but their oversight of the local affairs is concerned more with grandstanding and being obstructive on purely local matters within the City of Washington through veto power over the local budget and the ability to add riders and requirements for local acts with no input from the local government or its citizens:

- once a Senator forced DC to put a death penalty statute to referendum
- there is a rider on DC preventing it from spending local monies on abortions
- there is a rider on DC preventing it from developing regulations around marijuana use, even though residents passed legislation in favor of legalization.

A missed opportunity to focus on the Republican urban agenda at the Republican National Convention

I didn't think about trying to be prepared well in advance of the Republican National Convention with a post on what would be a reasonable Republican approach to urban issues that is congruent with Republican Party principles.

A couple months ago Aaron Renn of Urbanophile wrote a piece, "A $63 million high school football stadium shows changing Republican values," about how (paraphrased) "Republicans aren't against investing in public/civic facilities so long as they improve quality of life," that there is a recognition that an overfocus on "low taxes" comes with costs.

I meant to write about it.  I'd probably distinguish between (sub)urban Republicans and exurban and rural Republicans. Granted the old Republicans of the Northeast had a civic-infused agenda, albeit with a different perspective on a lot of things.  But for example, Republican Congressman Peter King of New York's 2nd District located in Central Long Island has a pro-transit agenda, given the needs of his constituents, many of whom ride the LIRR.  In the DC metropolitan area, past Republican Congressmembers from Northern Virginia have been amongst the area's major leaders concerning transit matters.

But it's true that reasonable people can agree on some things and disagree on others, and can agree on investing in community.  Although what people think is appropriate to invest in can vary considerably.  Maybe it's high school football centers yes, and senior centers or social service clinics no.

The mayor of Oklahoma, Mick Cornett, is Republican and is currently the chairman of the US Conference of Mayors ("OKC Mayor Mick Cornett Speaks At RNC In Cleveland," News9/OKC).

The "Metropolitan Area Program" he created is a system of planning, funding, and building a wide range of community facilities ("Cornett, Couch Say MAPS 4 Could Be Used To Fix Oklahoma City Street," KGOU) that is a leading national urban best practice.

Utah has had a series of Republican governors doing great things on regional and statewide smart growth planning, the environment, and transit.  (Although the state still goes ape**** about federally-owned lands.)

2.  Republican agenda from Speaker Ryan.  Similarly, I haven't read the Republican Congress agenda document by Paul Ryan titled A Better Way.  Mostly I disagree with his dominant agenda of tax cuts for the rich and diminishment of resources for the less well off, but listening to him on NPR yesterday, his point about needing more nuanced and individualized approaches for social supports makes sense to me.

If that's a Republican agenda, well, I could support it, provided they stop focusing on tax cuts for the rich, see "Can We Find Our Way Back to Lincoln?," New York Times.

3.  The 2016 Republican Platform is bad on transportation.  I think the Republican Party, this year anyway, is disinclined to be pro-urban, seeing "urban" as tied very much to the Democrats and President Obama.

From The 2016 Republican Party Platform | GOP:

America on the Move
Our country’s investments in transportation and other public construction have traditionally been non-partisan. Everyone agrees on the need for clean water and safe roads, rail, bridges, ports, and airports. President Eisenhower established a tradition of Republican leadership in this regard by championing the creation of the interstate highway system. In recent years, bipartisan cooperation led to major legislation improving the nation’s ports and waterways.

Our Republican majority ended the practice of earmarks, which often diverted transportation spending to politically favored projects. In the current Congress, Republicans have secured the longest reauthorization of the Highway Trust Fund in a decade and are advancing a comprehensive reform of the Federal Aviation Administration to make flying easier and more secure.

The current Administration has a different approach. It subordinates civil engineering to social engineering as it pursues an exclusively urban vision of dense housing and government transit. Its ill-named Livability Initiative is meant to “coerce people out of their cars.” This is the same mentality that once led Congress to impose by fiat a single maximum speed limit for the entire nation, from Manhattan to Montana. Our 1980 Republican Platform pledged to repeal that edict. After the election of Ronald Reagan, we did.

Now we make the same pledge regarding the current problems in transportation policy. We propose to remove from the Highway Trust Fund programs that should not be the business of the federal government.

More than a quarter of the Fund’s spending is diverted from its original purpose. One fifth of its funds are spent on mass transit, an inherently local affair that serves only a small portion of the population, concentrated in six big cities. Additional funds are used for bike-share programs, sidewalks, recreational trails, landscaping, and historical renovations. Other beneficiaries of highway money are ferry boats, the federal lands access program, scenic byways, and education initiatives. These worthwhile enterprises should be funded through other sources.   

We propose to phase out the federal transit program and reform provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act which can delay and drive up costs for transportation projects. ... With most of the states increasing their own funding for transportation, we oppose a further increase in the federal gas tax.

The platform also calls Amtrak a boondoggle and isn't supportive of high speed rail generally, except as private initiatives.

There are many problems with these positions.  Foremost is their belief that transportation only equals roads, and that the "highway gas excise tax" should only support roads, and that "complete roads" only make provisions for motor vehicle traffic, not other users, be they pedestrians, bicyclists, or transit users, and that from an optimal throughput standpoint, investing "highway gas taxes" in transit helps to add capacity to roads in the most congested metropolitan areas, which are the linchpins of the US economy.

4.  According to the article, Mayor Cornett's speech at the Convention focused on how Republican mayors are handling urban matters.  It was scheduled at 2pm Monday, which clearly indicates that urban issues, at least for this presidential election, are a low priority.