Congress, by overwhelming majorities, Democrat and Republican, pass a housing bill. They do so because housing is very expensive, home ownership is out of reach for so many, especially for younger families. They work hard on it, they shed their partisan differences for the most part, and they hand the bill to the president for signature. The president has been supportive of their efforts and, clearly, there is smooth sailing ahead.

But no. The president cancels the signing ceremony and says that he won’t sign the bill until Congress passes the SAVE America (from the Democrats) Act. He reverses his previous positions on the housing bill and calls it just a “minor” bill. Big deal, just because 90% of Congress voted for it, and just because housing is now looming high as an economic issue and therefore as an election issue, you think he should sign it and get on with life?

I have not studied the housing bill carefully, but Trump may be right that, in the big picture, this bill is might turn out to be minor. It attempts to make the production of housing somewhat less expensive by eliminating or lessening some regulatory and construction requirements, and may encouraging loosening of zoning restrictions. And it limits the ability of corporate buyers to outbid home buyers and put new housing on the rental market, rather than put in under the ownership of first time family home buyers. In the grand scheme of things, that may be minor. But so what?

Trump said that the real stumbling block to more home ownership is high interest rates, and he may be correct. But the Fed, under its new Trump appointed chairman, decided to leave interests rates where they were, rather than lowering them, in order to fight continuing inflation. This was a disappointment to Trump, to be sure, and he assumes that the opening of Hormuz will lead to less, or no, inflation, and the rates may tumble.

The SAVE Act, if passed into law, would put more chaos into what will certainly be chaotic mid-terms in November. And it seems clear that the Senate will not pass the act, unless the filibuster rule is eliminated. There is no way the Senate will give it 60 votes, but with a 50 vote standard, passage would be possible. Most Senators have been against eliminating the filibuster rule on the “what goes around, comes around” theory. But I wouldn’t put anything past them at this point.

Now, it is also true that presidents can’t just ignore legislation passed by Congress. They have ten days to act. They can either let the legislation go into law by letting ten days pass, or they have to actually veto the legislation. There seems to be an assumption that Trump is not going to veto this bill, and that sometime next week it will become law without his signature and without the passage of the SAVE Act. But how can they be so sure? Why should he hesitate to veto a “minor” bill, saying to Congress: after you pass the SAVE Act, enact the housing bill once more and I will sign it. I wouldn’t put anything past him at this point.

I also found the reversal of Senators Tillis and Paul on the War Powers Resolution interesting (even if the War Powers Resolution was itself “minor”). The populace is clearly against the Iran War and everything about it, so on the one hand it is hard to understand why these two (of the four Republican votes) changed their position. (By the way, Tillis is not against the War Powers Resolution, while Paul now voted “present”.) On the other hand, while we are actively negotiating to get out of the mess in Iran, a statement by Congress that Trump should not do anything more to support his war does put at least one hand behind the back of his negotiators (and after all, they are our negotiators). So, on one level, perhaps it is understandable, even though Trump would have tried to ignore it anyway.

Finally today, and I need to start my daily activities soon, it seems clear that the Republicans are going to concentrate on the primary victories, especially in New York, by left leaning Democrats, calling them the new leaders and faces of the Democratic Party (which in some areas they are), but also calling them Communists. I have mentioned this before as something that is hard to believe that a major political party would actually do, but now it seems clear that the Republicans actually will, and that such assertions will become mainstream and soon seem not outrageous at all, even thought there is zero (yes, zero) relationship between even the most left wing Democratic Socialists and Communism. There is hardly even any relationship between Democratic Socialists and socialism.

Okay, two more things. Yesterday was Robert Reich’s 80th birthday. I may be a bit crazy in writing a blog post every morning, but Reich (reaching millions of people to my dozens) seems to post something two or three times each day. Much too much for me. But yesterday, he talked about his 80th birthday. I will say this: it was an awful and nasty post (you can find it and look at it if you want), and it surprised me.

And finally one more time, Mayor Mamdani insulted AIPAC by calling it, its officials or its supporters (not sure which) “monsters”. Okay, he didn’t say it quite like that but almost – he referred to a larger group of organizations as “monsters”, but AIPAC was his “example”, the one he called out by name. I think he chose his words very badly, but today that is my point. He said that he was quoting Antonio Gramsci, Italian anti-Fascist who wrote something like (I don’t have time to get the actual quote): the old world is past, the new world is in the future, and this is time of monsters.

I actually talked about Gramsci and used that exact quote to describe the Trump administration about a month or so ago. You can search the blog and find it if you want.

Gotta run.