Posts Tagged ‘ john mccain

Have insurance through your job? McCain has a tax increase for you.

I’m going to make this simple. I’ve read a lot of analysis and details and wrote about this before and I am going to distill what I have gleaned from sources as varied as the NY Times, the Economist, the Kaiser Foundation and (gag) the Heritage Foundation about what John McCain proposes to do to your employer-based health care.

  • The amount your employer pays into your health care plan will be taxed. This means you will pay a higher income tax (as your income will be higher) and your employer will have to pay additional taxes on your income (as your income will be higher).
  • The $5,000 “tax credit” that McCain says offsets this tax will not go to people who continue to have employer-based coverage. The “tax credit” will go only towards privately-purchased (crappy) coverage you buy on the market. From what I have read, it only goes to the insurance company, not to you.
  • On average, employers put in over $10,000 a year towards their employees’ family health care plans. So if you’re making $50,000 now, you will be taxed on $60,000.

There you are. Those are your talking points.

If you’re interested in why McCain wants to do this and how it reflects his world views, you can read my other post on Obama vs McCain on health care. I can also sum up below.

McCain wants to privatize health care just like he wants to privatize social security. This is a way to do it. Many younger workers will drop out of the employer-based insurance pools because they either don’t need/don’t think they need the level of coverage that it affords. Instead, they will buy low fee, huge deductible private insurance. As the low risk population leaves the insurance pool, employer-based insurance pools will be increasingly high risk (older/sicker) and premiums will go up. The hope is that premiums will go up to the point where employers drop insurance altogether and everyone is forced onto the free market.

It’s a losing scenario in the long run. It’s a losing scenario in the short run, too.

Obama vs. McCain on the issues: Women’s Rights

There’s an article in Sunday’s Washington Post by Linda Hirshman that I’ll be getting to in just a moment, but first I want to touch on something I mentioned in a previous “on the issues” post. In it, I said that the “culture wars” topics – like gay marriage or abortion – were a distraction. This is true. When presented as issues of morality they are intended to distract people and drive an impenetrable wedge between them and the people who are “immoral.”

The problem, however, is that both of these issues have very real impacts – not only on peoples’ lives and choices, but in how the people who are the objects of each of those debates is treated.

I’m not going to talk about gay marriage today, but I am going to talk about abortion. Linda Hirshman’s article first.

My generation of women has been spoiled in that we have (dwindling, but present) access to abortion. Why is this spoiling? Because, apparently, the fact that we have it makes us not care whether we have it. The anti-choice fundamentalists love to wave fetuses in your face to show you how awful abortion is, but you rarely – if ever – see pro-choice people waving around images of women dead in a pool of blood from hemorrhaging after an illegal abortion.

Sorry for the shock value, but it’s true, it’s our legacy, it’s what has happened. It’s what will happen again because when abortion is illegal, women suffer. For instance, Hirshman cites West Germany’s prohibitive abortion laws and what they meant for women travelers.

In the 1980s, when abortion was severely limited in then-West Germany, border guards sometimes required German women returning from foreign trips to undergo vaginal examinations to make sure that they hadn’t illegally terminated a pregnancy while they were abroad. According to news stories and other accounts, the guards would stop young women and ask them about drugs, then look for evidence of abortion, such as sanitary pads or nightgowns, in their cars, and eventually force them to undergo a medical examination – as West German law empowered them to do.

Think this is outlandish? Couldn’t happen here? Please.

four states — Louisiana, Missisippi, North and South Dakota — as having trigger laws explicitly aimed at making abortion criminal upon Roe’ s demise, and seven others that have committed to acting to the extent that the court may allow

And the trouble may come with crossing state lines and criminality there.

“To speak of the fetus’ ” home state, and make the home it shares with the mother “a basis” for controlling a woman’s ability to get an abortion might “make sense,” Columbia law professor Gerald Neuman wrote in 1993 when abortion rights were last in peril.

Now, the difference between Obama and McCain on this is clear. McCain has pledged to pack the Supreme Court with justices in the vein of Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas (extremely conservative). Among these men are the three youngest justices who may have careers on the court for as long as 30-35 years. They are entrenched. Any more conservative justices and the next 30 years will be a nightmare for women, people of color, GLBT folks, free speech, torture discussions, social programs, etc.

And let me remind you, on the more liberal side, John Paul Stevens will not last out another administration. The man is hanging on by his 88-year-old teeth.

Anyway, on McCain’s issues page, the very first entry on the “Human Dignity and Sanctity of Life” section (sigh) is this:

Overturning Roe v. Wade

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the benchwill overturn it.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion.

Blah blah blah it goes on about “strength” of pregnant women “choosing life” and faith based hoo-ha and nothing about sex education or anything that actually prevents abortion from being needed as an option nor anything about social programs to help women/families who choose to have children. So – as usual – pro-life as long as the kid isn’t born yet.

Obama’s site has a reproductive choice section

Supports a Woman’s Right to Choose:
Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case.

Preventing Unintended Pregnancy:
Barack Obama is an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

So there it is – you choose between the guy who won’t tell you how to not get pregnant, force you to keep it if you do, and leave you out on your own once you’ve given birth OR the guy who will work to get you the education and the access to contraception you need to not get pregnant in the first place, give you the opportunity to make the choice if you do, and in other sections has all kinds of things about supporting families/mothers. (Obama doesn’t cynically roll together helping families and his reproductive choice section into the same thing like McCain does.)

Obama vs. McCain on the issues: Social Security

This post is in absolute danger of becoming a long, long rant about trickle down economics, deregulation, supposed “free market” capitalism, and the decimation of the true middle class. I will throw down some knowledge on that this week, but not today. Today, I want to focus on a small, small portion of the Social Security issue in light of what has happened on Wall Street this month.

It starts as simply as this. McCain wants to privatize Social Security. Obama doesn’t.

I believe, last week, that McCain compared Wall Street to a casino and had all kinds of quasi-regulatory talking points (“Cleaning up Wall Street” is not the same as saying you’re actually going to hold them accountable. It’s all talk.)

If Wall Street is a casino, why does McCain want us to trust the entirety of our retirements to it?

Imagine the absolute freak out that would be happening in this country if the entirety of not only our pensions and 401ks were on the line, but our Social Security as well. Of course, the government bailout essentially puts Social Security on the line, but that’s another topic.

So here’s your choice on your future.

Vote for Obama and you vote for someone who argued against privatization at the National Press Club in 2005 and has voted against Republican amendments to privatize Social Security.

Vote for McCain and you vote for someone who, if he’d had his way, would already have had your retirement in the rollercoaster stock market and free the government from any accountability for its citizens in their old age, despite them working to build the economy of this country for their entire lives.

Do not let McCain rewrite his own history on this. In 2000, part of his presidential agenda that he ran on was to privatize Social Security in “personal accounts” and he voted for Bush’s 2006 Social Security Privatization Plan, which would have moved Social Security’s annual surpluses into a reserve account that would become private accounts (ahem, you know, in the Wall Street Casino). [SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06; SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06]

Seriously, people. We cannot afford for McCain to be president. I don’t care which “culture war” issue may have to hedging to the Republican side, the downfall of our economy is NOT worth it. I’ll address the “culture war” issue – and how those issues are used to distract people – in another post.

Obama Vs. McCain on the issues: Health Care

This is so dire, folks. I really hope that anyone who is remotely considering voting for McCain or not voting at all hears this one, because if there is anything at all that will kill your budget, here you are.

I’m going to throw a lot of sources at you, because I want you to see that this isn’t some far out rant from the Huffington Post. This is real.

John McCain wants to destroy employer-based health benefits. Is destroy too severe of a term? I don’t think so. Part of McCain’s plan is to tax you for the amount your employer contributes to your health care benefits as if it were income. More on that after this public service moment.

First, you need to see through the carefully constructed terminology he uses on his website:

John McCain Believes The Key To Health Care Reform Is To Restore Control To The Patients Themselves. We want a system of health care in which everyone can afford and acquire the treatment and preventative care they need. Health care should be available to all and not limited by where you work or how much you make. Families should be in charge of their health care dollars and have more control over care…An important part of his plan is to use competition to improve the quality of health insurance with greater variety to match people’s needs, lower prices, and portability…While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit – effectively cash – of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider.

What this means: this means that you are on your own. Things like “restoring control to the patients” and “families should be in charge of their health care dollars and have more control over care” sound really nice. What they mean is that you are on your own. Have you ever tried to afford insurance on your own or worked for a small business whose coverage was minimal? I have. Cheap health insurance comes with ungodly deductibles before they even begin to cover doctor visits; caps on prescription drug spending; and bureaucratic nightmares if you need something actually covered. Small business’s insurance policies have similar problems.

The problem is, people often don’t notice these things until they get sick. Or in an accident.

The basic concept behind health insurance is one that is anathema to conservatives like Phil Gramm and John McCain – in theory, everyone pays into a system that disproportionately benefits those who need it most. It’s essentially making the burden of risk and the profit of benefit public. I would argue that conservative philosophy is exactly the opposite – they prefer privatizing profit and have no problem lobbying for the public carrying the burden of risk. This is where health care would go under McCain. Private profit, public risk. Keep repeating that. Private profit, public risk.

So back to the employer benefit and taxation issue. Highlighted in today’s Huffington Post is what is rarely spoken. I’ll quote:

McCain intends to tax workers for the value of health insurance that they receive from their employers. Really. It’s not included in the description of his plan on his web site. It is, however, on the site of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit organization that specializes in health policy…It says McCain would “reform the tax code to eliminate the exclusion of the value of health insurance plans offered by employers from workers’ taxable income.”

Gerard breaks it down in numbers: “The value of the typical plan provided by an employer to a family is $12,106, of which the employer pays $8,824, and the worker pays the remaining $3,282. The median household income is $44,389, which places most American families in the 15 percent income tax bracket. McCain wants to add the employer’s cost — an additional $8,824 — to that middle class family’s income, then tax it. The hit to the average family is 15 percent of the McCain-added income — $1,323 more in income taxes. And since the McCain tax credits are for privately purchased health care ONLY and do not extend to employer-paid benefits, you are literally losing at least $1,323 per year. I just ran the numbers for myself and – as a single person with no dependents, which means less costly health care – I would be looking at a $1300 increase myself.

Know what I don’t have? $1300. It is ridiculous for workers with benefits to be pressured to buy substandard insurance on the market.

Want to read more? I hope you’re outraged. I hope you know where you have over a thousand dollars to cut from your annual budget. Tell people about this. McCain Health Plan Could Mean Higher Tax (NY Times) The Tax Increase McCain Doesn’t Want to Talk About(Washington Monthly) McCain’s Health Care Proposal Will Increase Costs and Reduce Benefits (AFL-CIO) McCain’s $5,000 Promise (FactCheck.org) McCain’s Health-Care Proposal (Businessweek)

What I wish I could give you is more focused discussion of Obama’s health care proposal. Part of the problem is that the majority of time the news spent discussing any of Obama’s proposals/issues were in contention with Clinton. Since then, the news really couldn’t care less about his policy ideas. I’ll give you some info from his website and then add a couple of highlights. God he has so much more specificity on his site than McCain does. It’s beautiful.

I really encourage you to review Obama’s site that I linked to above. The plan is so detailed that I have a hard time summarizing it. But this is my attempt.

The goal is to have a publicly backed health care system. Key elements include guaranteed eligibility, benefits on par with the plan members of Congress have, affordability, subsidies for individuals in need, and accountability on the part of insurance companies. The National Health Insurance Exchange concept is to also allow individuals who want to purchase a private plan – it will act as a watchdog group and create rules/standards (accountability!) for private insurances. They would be required to issue everyone a policy and charge rates that aren’t dependent on health status. Employers must make a contribution, except for small business who can also receive a tax credit to help reduce their health care costs. Mandatory coverage of children. Ensuring Medicaid and SCHIP. Providing a safety net for the cost of catastrophic illnesses for employers/employees IF such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers’ premiums.

You guys, it just keeps going. Go to the site. He addresses women’s issues, civil rights issues in health care, disability/mental illness, technology research, prescription drug companies AND ON AND ON.

This is the man to vote for. He’s got the ideas, he’s got the plan, he needs the platform.

Obama vs. McCain on the issues: Equal Pay

Yeah, this was a little late. I spent all my blogging time finishing a freelance project so you were cheated out of your first issues post so I could make money. Disgusting. It’ll never happen again. (What will happen is that my three graduate classes will become an excuse. Sad.)

One of my pet issues has become equal pay for equal work. I had one of my “I’m not gonna take it anymore” moments last winter, and have been paying a lot of attention to the issue since then (and promoting it to my female peers).

I’m going to insert a caveat here before I start – I’m talking about gender-based equal pay for equal work because McCain and Obama have clear stances on the issue. Unfortunately, the racial disparities in pay aren’t being addressed explicitly by either candidate so I can’t position them on what they plan to do (if anything) about that gap.

As I have a certain insight into my own industry, I’ll address the argument that is raised by people who want to downplay the significant disparity in male vs. female pay (we women are making 77 cents to the male dollar). People who dismiss this will say “but women leave the workforce to raise children” or “but you’re comparing all jobs and there are more women in lower paying jobs” and I want to make it clear – even controlling for those two things, women still make less.

Take a look at the comments on this feministing article about pay in technology. Don’t even pay attention to the actual story, just read some of the comments. I’ll pull in a couple for you:

I have a friend who like me helps build software who quit her job recently because she found out the man sitting next to her, doing the same thing she was and who had the same seniority, was making $30,000 more.

Both myself and my partner are scientists in the biotech industry, and we are essentially the same level– a Bachelor’s Degree. He’s worked for 1 year longer than I, however, he has consistently made 5-8k more a year than I. He has also always had it “easier,” meaning his bosses have never micro-managed him or made him work extra hours to the extent that my bosses (all male) have. It’s very frustrating to come home at the end of the day and share our experiences… he takes long lunch breaks, never works more than 8 hours, has 1 more week than paid vacation and makes 8k more a year than I. He even had a bonus and a raise at the end of the year (me- nothing). And as I type this, my boss is having me stay late tonight, is irritating as hell and I make so much less, no bonuses, perks, etc. What’s more, I graduated in less than 4 years with a near perfect GPA and a more difficult degree, where he took 6 years, had a horrible average and no undergrad research experience like I did (and yes, we went to the same school).

I worked in IT for academia for nearly 13 years where salaries are a matter of public record (because they are paid by taxpayers). Despite this openness, I found that I have consistently made less than equally qualified men, on the order of $5-10K.

i work at a dotcom and i’ve had the exact same (literally, down to the #) experience as JessicaNOW’s friend. I found out that the guy sitting across from me (who has less experience and skill than i do) was making 30% more. when i found out, i did a salary survey in my area for my job and sent it to the head of HR. in response, they did an investigation and gave me and my female co-worker, who also has the same title but has been here 8 years (i’ve been here 3 and the man’s been here 6 months), a 8% raise. she and i have identical salaries, so he’s still making 20% more than either of us. i also talked to both my supervisor and her supervisor about the salary difference and they both told me there was nothing they could do about it. there’s a general undercurrent of misogyny here – every woman who has risen to any kind of power or who doesn’t tow the line has been marginalized or ground down until she leaves.

If you have access to pay records at your institution, I highly recommend taking a look at them.

Anyway, this can bring us to Obama and McCain. And Lilly Ledbetter.

You deserve some background on this case. I wrote about Ledbetter earlier this year. But, in summary, the Supreme Court ruled because Ledbetter did not file a complaint within 180 days of her first paycheck she couldn’t sue her employer even though she was making almost half of her male equals.

180 days of the first paycheck with a disparity. SIX MONTHS. You would have to figure out the disparity and sue your employer within SIX MONTHS. Any idea how that court case would go? You would be an opportunist. You would most likely lose.

Obama’s stance on issues of equal pay are aligned with women’s priorities. We want equal pay for equal work. Nothing more and nothing less.

Obama was an original co-sponsor of Congress’s attempt to pass legislation that would reverse the result of the Ledbetter case. (NPR) and has outlined his priorities for women’s pay on his campaign website.

Fighting for Pay Equity:
Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. A recent study estimates it will take another 47 years for women to close the wage gap with men at Fortune 500 corporate offices. Barack Obama believes the government needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act, fight job discrimination, and improve child care options and family medical leave to give women equal footing in the workplace.

Expanding Paid Medical Leave: Today, three-out-of-four low-wage workers have no paid sick leave. It is fundamentally unfair that a single mom playing by the rules can get fired or lose wages because her child gets sick. Barack Obama supports efforts to guarantee workers seven days of paid sick leave per year, a moderate proposal that should not impose too onerous a burden on employers.

McCain’s stance on equal pay is to not allow legal recourse, but essentially to trust business to do the right thing.

“I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what’s being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems,” McCain told reporters yesterday. “This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system.”

Without legal recourse, there is no way for equal pay to be enforced or even exposed. Without legal recourse, businesses can continue to get the “gender discount” when they hire women. Without legal recourse, we will never close the gender gap in pay because without legal recourse, businesses will not change their practices because they are not held accountable for their practices.

You can read more about Obama’s stances on all kinds of women’s issues at his website.

I would direct you to the part of John McCain’s website that had information about his stances on women’s issues if he had one. I guess the only thing remotely related is the section titled “the sanctity of life” and includes titles like: “Overturning Roe v. Wade,” “Protecting Marriage,” “Protecting Children from Internet Pornography,” and “Protecting Children from Online Predators.” So have fun with that.

A brief note on Sarah Palin

There are plenty of reasons that women shouldn’t get behind Sarah Palin just because she’s got two X chromosomes, including her adamantly anti-choice stance on women’s rights to make decisions for themselves. Personally, I think that Palin was chosen cynically – to potentially appeal to the radical right Christian conservatives and to disenchanted (sigh, so sick of that meme) Hillary supporters.

All that said, I’m already seeing the sexism that encountered Clinton rearing its ugly, ugly head in discussions of Palin. It’s disgusting and unnecessary and none of us should stand for it. Just as we shouldn’t stand for the misogynistic attacks on Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton or any other woman.

That’s it, that’s all I’m saying on this. Have fun this extended weekend and join me at the Liberty Parade if you’re in Minneapolis!

McCain vs. Obama on the issues: Intro

Megan and I can hardly listen to the radio anymore without feeling so frustrated we have to turn it off and hope by the time we turn it back on that the media is done finding angry Clinton supporters to sound off and give them fun and ridiculous soundbites. It’s almost impossible to listen to the discussions of anything Michelle Obama does because it comes back to questions of “Do you think she was patriotic enough? How can she convince people she doesn’t hate America?”

Let me tell you now – there is absolutely nothing Michelle Obama can do that will get the pundits to stop asking that question, just as there is nothing Barack Obama can do to stop the media from dwelling on the drama that they continue generating about the small but vocal number of Clinton supporters who threaten to support a candidate who opposes almost everything their candidate believed in.

So you know people question Michelle’s patriotism, Barack’s “Americanness,” whether Hillary’s supporters will support a Republican rather than vote for Obama.

What else do you know? How are you being educated about the differences between the candidates in this race? (Boy, are there differences!) Well, your humble blogger has had it. From now until the election, I will be giving a weekly analysis of a specific issue and how the two candidates differ. It’s time to talk about what matters and the petty dramas that find themselves at the top of the media cycle are not what’s most important. Most important are what are the candidates’ values and what are their visions for our country – and how do they plan to implement those visions.

Look for Part I of this handy guide to McCain vs. Obama on the issues this Sunday.

Let’s say it: Republicans don’t believe in fair pay for women

You know, I am so sick of this. I blogged a while ago in my old Myspace blog about Lilly Ledbetter, a woman who sued her employer, Goodyear Tire, for paying her less than her male coworkers doing the same work. The Supreme Court ruled last year that because Ledbetter did not file a complaint within 180 days of her first paycheck she couldn’t sue. Because, you know, we generally find out we’re getting discriminated against within 3 months of it happening.

This is, of course, complicated by many companies barring employees from even discussing their pay (they can get fired for doing so). Personally, I think this is partially in place to allow discrimination to continue without accountability. Call it conspiratorial, but I’m just saying–women expect less and it’s in companies’ financial interests to not let us realize what’s up.

Well, today, Senate Republicans blocked the attempt to fix the legislation the Supreme Court interpreted in such an idiotic fashion.

Of the bill, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said:

We think that this bill is primarily designed to create a massive amount of new litigation in our country.

Honestly? I would hope it does. The point of legislation like this is to call the companies on their behavior. It’s us saying: you can’t get away with this anymore. Don’t want lawsuits? Don’t pay your female workers 6k less than their lowest paid male peer with the same responsibilities (that was Ledbetter’s situation).

And she summed up the lasting implications of it too: a lifetime of pay inequity results in lower Social Security payouts, lower pensions, lower 401k amounts…it’s a constant, lingering inequality. And it’s just wrong.

I’d like to note that John McCain–you know, the “maverick” that foolish Clinton and Obama supporters sometimes say they’ll vote for if their candidate doesn’t get the Democratic nomination–voted with the Republicans to block the bill. McCain has a long history of anti-woman voting, so this is not at all surprising, but I thought I’d call attention to it because the “If X doesn’t win, I’m going to vote for McCain” line is bugging the hell out of me.

To be fair, I thought I’d give respect to the Republicans who voted to advance this bill. They are: Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Susan Collins of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and John Sununu of New Hampshire.

John McCain is not a moderate

It’s time to stop mocking Ron Paul and Huckabee and take McCain seriously as the Republican candidate.

Don’t believe the spin. McCain is not a moderate. He has an incredibly conservative record. While he has the ability to reach across the aisle on some issues, his core beliefs are NOT moderate. Here is a great video/audio example:

Giuliani gets pwnd by the Times; HuffPo turns to the stars

I can’t help but feel that there is something in the collective atmosphere linking arbitrary things (like astrology) to the candidates, the election, and their poll numbers. I did this in a different way last week, but I’m digging the concept of HuffPollstrology, which mocks polls by combining them with the candidates’ horoscopes, the weather, and internet betting odds on the campaign. By the way, what’s with all the Geminis and Virgos?

In other news, Giuliani gets PWND by the NY Times in their lukewarm endorsement of McCain (the least bad – that’s the gist of it). I danced with glee.

Why, as a New York-based paper, are we not backing Rudolph Giuliani? Why not choose the man we endorsed for re-election in 1997 after a first term in which he showed that a dirty, dangerous, supposedly ungovernable city could become clean, safe and orderly? What about the man who stood fast on Sept. 11, when others, including President Bush, went AWOL?

That man is not running for president.

The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.

Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn’t share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges.

The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city’s and the country’s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign.

I’m so glad they called him out on that. It’s about damn time.