Monday, February 5, 2018

Is there reasonable doubt? The Memo

I don’t understand how Democrats can say some of the things they do, take for example Sen Amy Klobuchar here ( 

They truly are playing political games and ignoring the facts. I agree that interpretation can vary, based on your world view. However some facts do insist upon close scrutiny. The “Memo” (a left leaning analysis here had some basic facts that are basically universally accepted:

  • 1) The dossier, which had no verifiable information just salacious innuendo, was compiled by an ardent anti Trump agent (desperate to prevent a Trump Presidency) through the paid request of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign “to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump's ties to Russia”. In the FISA court applications, this was not revealed, though it was known to the agents. 
  • 2) Testimony given to the committee indicated the dossier play a significant role in the FISA applications. How significant is being debated between sides, though “Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information”, a statement that is somewhat disputed by Democrats.
  • 3) The agents involved all expressed significant anti-trump sentiments and did not want him to be President. Text messages of those involved in the Mueller investigation, have since shown the extent of this bias.

These basic facts are not really in dispute, except where noted. 

Outside of the memo we know Russians did hack the DNC (via Podesta and other avenues), and used Facebook to produce fake news. Well they contributed, along with US media sources like CNN, to attempt to confuse the electorate. Investigations of that are eminently reasonable. However what is the basis for accusing one campaign of a link to that over the other campaign’s links to Russian sources? One paid for a dossier to accuse the other., and got an FBI investigation. One met with a Russian lawyer, possibly for opposition research, but got nothing, except accusations from opponents. That’s about all. If we go from business connections there is probably more evidence of collusion (as defined as money paid) in the payments from Russian sources into the Clinton Foundation, but we mustn’t talk about that of course.

So the question is, why do the Democrats not agree with the legitimate concern about violation of Fourth Amendment rights, and possible agency malfeasance? We have had over a year of “Russian Collusion” that has to the best public knowledge produced nothing but process charges. At some point the Mueller investigation should end. It is unreasonable to continue public accusations, ad infinitum, with no verifiable evidence. That is a smear and witch hunt, not an investigation. Was it originated due to an entirely partisan unfounded accusation? Was it based on any facts? Is it unreasonable to point fingers at Justice Dept agents who quite likely let their partisan views push unfounded investigations for political reasons? If there is reasonable doubt that these investigations not simply politically motivated, should we sit back and not complain? According to Amy Klobuchar Republican should not resist or object. That is unreasonable. What would she say, were these investigations and charges made about her?  

The above three facts should cause great alarm for anyone concerned about honesty and fair treatment, regardless of political ideology. The fact that it is not for the Democrats is equally telling. And Amy Klobuchar as prosecutor ought to know and admit that!

Thursday, December 28, 2017

Who's Scamming Who - Taxes

On Nov 8, 2017 Rep Betty McCollum gave a standard floor speech to rail against the on going work to provide Tax Reform and Reduction to the American people. This paralleled speeches and language from Nancy Pelosi (a California multi-millionaire, with net worth of $196 million) seen here.

Here is the transcription and the video:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republican’s Tax Scam. The middle class receives virtually no benefits from this bill. This bill hits middle class Minnesotan’s especially hard by dismantling the state and local tax deduction. It increases cost for college students and their families. It abandons adoptive parents and it punishes people with high medical bills. So why does this bill hurt hard working families? So President Trump and the Republican’s can pay for give aways to the wealthiest Americans. Big corporations and billionaires will see their taxes slashed wealthy, heirs and heiresses will be allowed to dodge taxes entirely. While the top 1% of Americans receive nearly half the tax cuts. 99% of us will be stuck with a federal debt that will explode by trillions of dollars. Mr. Speaker this Republican bill is not tax reform, it is not a good bill for the middle class, it is a scam plain and simple. I oppose it and we must defeat it.

So let’s analyze, line by line, and parse the fact from the fiction, and decide who is scamming who. It will take a lot to unpack the innuendo and deliberately vague allusions to “what if” conjectures made about unspoken charges.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republican’s Tax Scam. 
There is no real testable information here. But lets note that its an immediate appeal to emotions using a classic “name calling” technique. Not particularly persuasive for most people. Or at least I hope it would not be.

The middle class receives virtually no benefits from this bill.
Well CBS went to test that very thesis and declared it to be untrue. They had the potential tax bills from 3 households tested and found all would be reduced substantially 

This bill hits middle class Minnesotan’s especially hard by dismantling the state and local tax deduction.
This one is partly true, not because of the tax bill itself, but because of the indisputable fact that Minnesota taxes are so high relative to most other states. It is the 8th highest tax state in the union. And the discrepancy has increased through the entire Dayton administration.

Now here comes the complete story. Since the Federal Tax plan now doubles the standard deduction, the only people who will see any such problem are the highest income households in Minnesota. So the reality of it is, Rep McCollum is decrying “taxes on the richest Minnesotans”, rather than the substantial savings for any lower income household.

It increases cost for college students and their families.
Well the best information on that appear to be a combination of fears that the wealthy will reduce donations and a small tax imposed on the wealthiest of private institutions endowment funds. Again. It looks like Rep McCollum is more anxious about the wealthy than she is about the average Minnesotan, she is simply twisting arguments to support her preference.
Like the House bill, the Senate legislation imposes a new 1.4 percent excise tax on the largest endowments held by private colleges. But thanks to an amendment offered Friday, the tax will apply only to endowments valued at $500,000 per full-time student. Previously, that provision would have applied to endowments valued at $250,000 per student. But although the tax will apply to only the wealthiest private institutions, higher education leaders call it a flawed idea that sets a worrying precedent.

In general the Washington Post describes benefits in almost every point for education.

It abandons adoptive parents and it punishes people with high medical bills.
These were tax deductions that were proposed to be reduced since the standard deduction was being doubled. 
The best discussion of the adoption credit is here
However much it may have alleviated the financial burdens of adopting families, it appears not to have increased the number of adoptions. 

But the use of language “punishes people” is a great hyperbolic emotional exaggeration. Which is exactly what the next sentence proceeds to do by excessive language and posing a statement as an extreme question. An unfounded statement and 

So why does this bill hurt hard working families?

So on to the next line where she attempts to answer this false dilemma or false cause

So President Trump and the Republican’s can pay for give aways to the wealthiest Americans.
The blatant appeal to envy and greed aside, its an empty statement as far as information. Thus we are left to assume next lines are to be used to define this further

Big corporations and billionaires will see their taxes slashed wealthy, heirs and heiresses will be allowed to dodge taxes entirely.
“Big Corporations” must mean an allusion to the corporate tax rate. Taxing corporations is a much argued topic. What does it mean to tax a corporation, since any such “cost” to the corporation must either be passed directly onto the consumer as increased prices to compensate, or has to be absorbed and reduces competitiveness (higher price relative to competitor or foreign product) and future investment. We saw the effect of high corp tax rate here in Minnesota when Medtronic moved corporate headquarters to Ireland’s 12.5% tax rate environment to escape the US 35% 

But what does reducing corporate tax rates really mean for US employees? A number of companies have already answered that question with large bonus’s attributed to the tax bill.
The Corporate Tax-Cut Dividend
Workers get a $1,000 bonus. Democrats call it ‘cruel’ and a ‘scam.’
Alas for Rep. Pelosi, the business reaction so far to the tax bill is starting to look like the ending of “It’s a Wonderful Life.” As we went to press, at least six large corporations had announced plans to do more for their employees, explicitly attributing their action to the tax bill’s business tax reforms.

Tax cut are difficult to make unless you actually cut the tax rates. It is an inescapable fact that cutting taxes will cut taxes for everyone, including the wealthy. Since they pay most of the taxes, they will see a reduction. Its a ridiculous claim to try to use. This chart of California tax rates gives some hint of that dependence and the inevitability. Its a complicated chart, which analysis goes beyond the scope here. But imagine trying to draw the red line lower, without going below zero.

The reference to heirs and heiresses must be another allusion, this time to the “death tax”
The death tax has always been problematic, because it can force sale of smaller companies. With the subsequent loss of jobs. The final plan reduced the impact on the number of households that would have to pay the death tax by increasing (doubling) the threshold for the progressive tax. But don't worry, Nancy Pelosi’s, and Donald Trump's for that matter, heirs and heiresses will still have to pay this tax, in any scenario.

While the top 1% of Americans receive nearly half the tax cuts. 
This is the traditional class envy “go to” line that is a time honored appeal to greed for all. As shown before, its impossible to cut taxes without cutting the tax for “the wealthy” unless you specifically raise their taxes and violate the tax cut promise. As the tax bill progressed in committee and the normal process the “broad picture” statements were developed, the reductions curves were flattened. But since there is such a huge progressive distortion in how much the different income groups pay in taxes, refer to chart above, it will always be the case that those who pay more will get more reduction. So, as far as an age old argument its always guaranteed to be true, and thus immensely useful for demagoguery.

99% of us will be stuck with a federal debt that will explode by trillions of dollars
Ah the lure of exaggeration.  The estimates are for about $1 Trillion dollars over 10 years, not "trillions" . Now personally I am logically (although perhaps not strict enforcement due to pragmatism) opposed to adding to the national debt at all, but let's address the hypocrisy here. Rep McCollum was perfectly fine with the Barack Obama debt addition of about $9 trillion, or just over $1 trillion every single year on average! 

As extra bonus points, Nancy Pelosi's video claims that the Tax Bill will represent an increase for 86 million households. That 4 Pinocchio whopper is discussed here and here. Surprisingly Rep McCollum did not make that claim in this video we dissected here. The source of that statement appears to be this:
What Democrats tried to hide is that their statement is based on one part of the Tax Policy Center's analysis of the GOP bill, which focused on what would happen in 2027, after the individual tax cuts are set to expire.

Mr. Speaker this Republican bill is not tax reform, it is not a good bill for the middle class, it is a scam plain and simple

So Rep Betty McCollum’s floor speech was great theater, but really,
Who’s Scamming Who?

So to see how it will affect your taxes, here is the final test, 

For a detailed study of Minnesota taxation look here:

Saturday, December 23, 2017

Liberals see it raining Tax Increases

In a recent Facebook discussion I had with a liberal, he opined that the recent Tax Bill was a Huge Tax Increase. The following ensued.  Is it really so hard to have a substantive discussion with a liberal? Do they always devolve to ad-hominem attacks when emotional arguments fail? It appears so, here at least. Pardon the misspellings, I left everything as a direct copy.

This was all in the context of a liberal responding to a post that posited: 
Democrats might have made a mistake by attacking the recently enacted tax bill.”

A Liberal
It's actually a tax hike over the next 10 years: 

Even the far left WashPo calls that meme a lie, giving it 4 Pinocchios

A Liberal:
This images expresses my stance on this. 
It's worth noting your news source is not unbiased:

A Liberal:

So since you cannot follow that it was a review of the leftist Washington Post, here is the Washington Post, which while leftist to the hilt, you will probably accept as "truth", and in this case may be close

Here is where you can up your contributions to the Fed if you wish

And using your tool, it shows the WashPo to be just as biased, albeit to the left as Washington Examiner. So does that invalidate either? I think your view is a little myopic. 

A Liberal:
Income inequality has never been higher than it is now...except during the first great depression. Giving corportions tax breaks is not going to improve this situation. Empowering corrupt venal racists to make sure that out roads are maintained, that children are educated and that jobs continue to pay fairly seems like a lose lose to me. I think when Trump term ends in 2019 we will see how HE managed the existing swamp after a little distance. Our system is broken I don't believe Dems or Reps are going to get it under control until we reverse Citizens United. It's too tempting for our reps to make fair decisions when they stand to get so rich in modern politics.

Me: So many unfounded untruths its hard to know where to start. Corporate tax does not take money from a corporation. It is simply passed on in increased prices and reduced competitiveness. "Corrupt venal racists", really? Why use such abusive and ad hominem attacks in polemic? Its a cheap argument and really unpersuasive. If you study the education issue you can find so much data that shows money does not solve issues. In the state of California there was a study done that demonstrated exactly the lack of correlation. Citizens United, while the left abhors it was equally an issue for Corporate Unions as for Corporate Non-Union organizations.


Or the original study 

Probably a more important question for many, at least those who attempt to improve their income, is income upward mobility. Which has been stable. Its interesting to note that downward mobility is also common, but few really look at it or care.

A Liberal: 
Cato and NPR are both generating propaganda. Look this admin is the least 'christ like' of any administration. I am ambarrassed by our white house. I wonder why you are not. Trump is convenient idiot who is also a racist, classist, mesogenist, kleptocratic tool for the Republicans. Oh and he is right dimplomat for the job if you want all of our allies to start breaking off relationships with us. America first? More like Trump first. Good luck with your version of the US. I hope it works out for you.

Wow. Definition: Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda. That is basically true for anyone attempting to put forth any argument in any discussion. Even ostensibly "objective" fact finding organizations can bias by ignoring some of the facts, and enhancing others. I assume you are attempting to say that the Libertarian Cato institute is biased "right" (though I think they might disagree) and NPR is biased left (I know they will disagree, but I would agree they are). I repeat, does that really invalidate an organization, simply for having an ideological stance? In that case you pretty much cannot listen to anyone but yourself. And I hate to tell you, you probably have a bias also.

A Third Commentor: 
The tax cuts will KILL BABIES!!!!

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

What Does Hollywood Teach?

The last few weeks the media has been filled with discussions about "assaults on women". Its always easier to simply blame and dismiss than it is to study where attitudes potentially come from. Since I personally have had a hard time watching anything for the last year except the Hallmark channels, I took note this Thanksgiving week of the Lifetime Network offerings, just a channel away from my standard location in the directory. I frankly was appalled at what the daily fare on a channel purportedly managed by women for women had as its content. Is this what trendsetting Hollywood women think is a good example and fare for an audience of potentially young women to watch? What message do they display and endorse? One is left wondering what the rationale is for this content. I know for me it is depressing and distressing to think someone considers this the norm or something to celebrate.

From their website their "broad focus" statement is:
Lifetime's Broad Focus is a major initiative designed to provide women with more opportunities to write, develop, produce and direct content for the network. Lifetime is proud to claim 52% of our writers and 29% of our directors on all movies last year were women. For scripted series, 59% of our writers and 55% of our directors were women. 
So one would think that this would be an endorsement for what they feel should be good behavior and appropriate messages to both women and men who watch the channel. But a quick scan of the titles and synopsis shows something that I both cringe at and avoid completely.

This is the complete 6am to midnight schedule for November 22, 2017.
The Other Man
After his wife Lisa disappears on a business trip, Peter finds evidence that she has been having an affair with Ralph. He flies to Milan and enters into a complicated charade by befriending Ralph and slowly teasing information about Lisa out of him.
Another Woman's Husband
A shared detail threatens to snap the tight bond between two female friends (Lisa Rinna, Gail O'Grady).
Love Thy Neighbor
A family moves into a seemingly idyllic community but starts to receive threats from an unknown source.
When Husbands Cheat
A woman (Patricia Kalember) becomes a detective, then uses her skills to check her policeman husband's (Tom Irwin) fidelity.
Her Best Friend's Husband
A woman faces a moral dilemma when she tries to save her friend's marriage but falls in love with the woman's husband.
Nightmare Nurse
After a bad accident, Brooke's boyfriend Lance requires at-home care during his recovery. His attractive nurse seems perfect until her troubled past comes to light, making it apparent to the happy couple that someone is trying to destroy their lives.
A Deadly Affair
A woman who suspects her contractor husband of having an affair trails him to a house and finds him dead.
A Perfect Murder
A commodities trader (Michael Douglas) takes action when his wife (Gwyneth Paltrow) has an affair with a bohemian painter (Viggo Mortensen).
Love to Kill
A man (Rick Ravanello) learns that his seductive wife (Blanchard Ryan) is responsible for the deaths of her previous husbands.
A Perfect Murder
A commodities trader (Michael Douglas) takes action when his wife (Gwyneth Paltrow) has an affair with a bohemian painter (Viggo Mortensen).

We as a society may be hesitant to claim that movies and television affect moral attitudes, but constant bombardment of negative stereotyping eventually takes a toll, conditioning us to the content. I know its one I cannot stand to watch in the entertainment I will partake of!


Thursday, December 17, 2015

My Question for a Presidential Forum

What question would you want to pose for a Presidential forum? As I wait to attend and video record the Ted Cruz event tonight I was thinking about what question I would ask, were I chosen to ask a question during the media press conference, and this came to mind:

After 7 years without a Federal Budget, where the government funding is decided basically by omnibus continuing appropriation bills that carry everyones favorite expenditure, which they could not get passed by any other vehicle, is there a way to get back to "regular order"? And what steps can a President actually take to help that? Or has the coalition of Obama-Reid-Pelosi so destroyed the system that constitutional process cannot be restored?

Or after having ruled the country essentially by Presidential executive order fiat (it could certainly be read as "dictatorship" or "totalitarian", by the above mentioned cabal) for 7 years does it simply reassert because the liberals will see it as the best way to continue to force their agenda? Because regular order helps representation of the minority, and their agenda continues with each bill increasing government and regulation. The current "executive order" process simply does it ever at a much faster pace.  That is one reason why progressives like MN Rep Betty McCollum have been so strongly supportive of Barack Obama executive orders and regulation (bypassing Congress). While it diminishes the power and authority of Congress, where she serves, it achieves the progressive goals much more quickly and can much more easily ignore the rights and desires of even a majority, let alone a minority.

Saturday, May 30, 2015

The Case for a Dayton Shutdown Blame Game

During the 2011 shutdown, Governor Dayton made certain that the most egregious shutdown actions possible were conducted. Essential services were cut and pain was exacted so that he could have good talking points for later use.

Is the DFL Senate majority and Governor Mark Dayton trying to force another shutdown on Minnesota? There is significant evidence to indicate that they may be working towards that. Here are the reasons.

After the 2011 shutdown in an interview Governor Dayton was asked about it:
Dayton:  And this was not apparent to me or other of our negotiators at that time of June 30, but the Republicans said subsequently [it was stated in a letter PRIOR to the shutdown] publicly that they would take all these policy items everything from banning stem cell research to abolishing teacher tenure to abrogating contractual bargaining rights to uh of employees, all that was going to be taken off of the negotiating tables so we would be able to focus just on the budget. That was not at all clear to us at all on the night of June 30th and so it really put it in a different context, and it also uh they have agreed to my $500 million bonding bill which would go a long way to putting more people to work in Minnesota [not borne out in results subsequently] .

Interviewer: Its sounds like governor, without putting words in your mouth, that it sounds like this could have been worked out on June 30th without a shutdown, except for miscommunication.

Dayton: Well uh, eh, ya, you know we were in constant communication [except for reading negotiating letters], but uh I don't know whether there was miscommunication or subsequent revision [misdirection?], I don't know, but anyway you know what's done is done and the important thing now is to get an agreement very quickly where you have our groups working very quickly on that today, we've got 10 o'clock today deadlines…

Sounds similar to Hillary's "what difference does it make" comment about the dead in Benghazi and blaming it on a youtube video no one had seen?

The 2011 interview is at 91 seconds...

So this year there were some rather banal leading questions by the media, at a Governor Mark Dayton press conference in March (full conference where Mark Dayton decried the 2011 shutdown and said he hopes other people remember it, he certainly does. See the shutdown questions from the beginning of the link above
Dayton: Compromise means you agree to things you don't agree with, obviously I'm going to have to compromise if we are going to get a resolution and avoid the serious consequences of 2011
But what he appears to remember, is how to set up the conditions for a shutdown.  In 2011 he vetoed all the bills

And he is repeating that strategy again this year!

Rather than actually working through it, he simply vetoes clearly bi-partisan compromise bills, since they had to pass both a DFL controlled Senate and GOP majority house.

Where Mark Dayton demands concession and compromise, he is far from inclined to offer any such on his part to avoid a shutdown.

While GOP House leader Daudt said:
“With his vetoes, he is rejecting bipartisan efforts to put more than $17 billion toward students in every classroom, provide resources to help farmers devastated by avian flu, send relief to miners facing unemployment on the Iron Range,” Daudt’s statement said. Daudt added while the legislature, including the DFL-majority Senate, finished its work, “the governor wants more time. We will continue to work with him for Minnesotans.”
Dayton has used inflammatory rhetoric to vilify the GOP and further draw back from any potential compromise.
They hate the public schools, some of the Republican legislators," the governor said. "They're loathe to provide any additional money for public schools and for public school teachers because all of the good programs I've seen around this state for pre-K and all-day kindergarten..
Dayton said his previous budget offers are now off the table and he intends to push for even more school funding. But he wouldn't say if he'll insist universal pre-K be a part of the final deal

And then there is the question of the blame game, because of course the DFL and Mark Dayton must ultimately be seen as blameless in the failure to negotiate and compromise

By J. Patrick Coolican MAY 12, 2015 — 1:25PM
[Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook] said he'd seen seeing polling data that would place blame for a shutdown on Republicans, but said it's not his intention.
On Mitch Berg's radio show it was revealed that no one in the Republican caucus has seen or heard of such a poll. Which means its almost certain that early during the Legislative session the DFL has had a poll taken that gives them both comfort that they will not be blamed if they bring about a shutdown, and the clear freedom to go beyond brinksmanship. All punishment for their actions will be meted out to their political opponents. That is smoking gun evidence of underhanded dealing and negotiating in poor faith by the DFL.

Sen. Tom Bakk has stated that he is not going to negotiate with House Republicans. As Senate Majority Leader, doesn't he have an inherent responsibility to make sure that the Senate has a seat at the table? Of course we know that by deferring the responsibility, he's essentially siding with Dayton in the negotiations. So with Senator Bakk abrogating his responsibilities and Dayton's radical brinksmanship approach, the evidence suggests are they simply pushing us into a shutdown deliberately?

Hopefully voters and state workers threatened with layoff notices will remember next year what transpired, and who really caused the pain that the state will go through. It was not the media's favorite piƱata, it was the Democrat Party!

Monday, March 2, 2015

Betty McCollums Dangerous Naivety

In an article written by Betty McCollum, she states her rationale for not going to the speech by Benjamin Netanyahu
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in the midst of a heated re-election campaign. Yet he is traveling 5,900 miles to give a speech before a joint meeting of Congress on Tuesday--just two weeks before Israelis go to the polls.

In her analysis, the only motivation is political gain in an election.

There  are just too many holes in such naive, and very dangerous, logic. It ignores the main issue of a nuclear Iran poised to destroy the tiny nation of Israel, our best ally in a very dangerous region, with a looming acceptance of its nuclear ambitions coming from a treaty in the immediate works with Barack Obama. With Betty McCollum's almost certain support.
But some US administration allies are puzzled that what they consider a soft deadline for a framework agreement for a final Iran nuclear deal has seemingly become the de facto deadline, rather than the June 30 deadline that Iran and the six world powers agreed to in November.

The US administration has “bought two months, but sold three,” a Western diplomat, speaking not for attribution, told Al-Monitor.

Some Democratic Senators who have signed onto a letter from Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., to President Barack Obama have told interlocutors that the Obama administration asked them to give it until the end of March to see if a framework deal could be reached, before voting on new Iran sanctions legislation.

Read more:

Lest anyone think that this is not an issue of immediate importance to all the people of Israel, and our own National security, not merely a "political stunt" as she prefers to think of it, one needs go no further than today's article of the Jerusalem Post
JPOST.COM STAFF \ 03/03/2015 04:50
US Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and US Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), the Committee’s Ranking Member, released a bipartisan letter on Monday, to be sent to President Barack Obama, highlighting concerns over ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran.
Royce and Engel circulated the letter to other House members, in hopes of garnering support and signatures.
With a looming deadline for a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran, the letter outlines a series of "difficult issues" which have surfaced during negotiations and have yet to be resolved. These “grave and urgent issues" pertain to the size of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, its lack of cooperation with international inspectors, and the need for an intrusive inspection regime.

And in case there is any question about "one ups man ship", this all comes on the heels of Barack Obama telling Congress to get lost on attempting to weigh in on the treaty
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama would veto a bill recently introduced in the U.S. Senate allowing Congress to weigh in on any deal the United States and other negotiating countries reach with Iran on its nuclear capabilities, the White House said on Saturday.

"The president has been clear that now is not the time for Congress to pass additional legislation on Iran.  If this bill is sent to the president, he will veto it," said Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the White House's National Security Council.
more here and here

So in terms of rude treatment, I think the prize goes to President Obama and his ardent supporter Betty McCollum.

Regardless of the outcome of the upcoming elections, March 17, there will be a significant delay in furthering the case for change to the proposed treaty. A new government will have to form and begin negations with Barack Obama. Negotiations that have met with pointed resistance and dismissal in the past.  So the time is now for presenting any message that has a hope of making an impact in the thinking behind this treaty. Since President Obama seems dedicated to making the decision this March, almost during the Israeli elections, rather than even the agreed upon June deadline. It would be difficult for the Israeli elections to be able to do anything but prevent their voice being heard.

Thus I believe it is very evident that Betty McCollum's arguments are wholly specious!