Daily Archives: October 3, 2021

Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) will use an evolved version of the Super-All Wheel Control (S-AWC) system in its plug-in hybrid (PHEV) model of the all-new Outlander crossover SUV, which is scheduled for launch in Japan in the second half of this fiscal year and in the US in the second half of calendar-year 2022.

The S-AWC system is all-wheel control technology that offers integrated control of Active Stability Control (ASC), Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) and Active Yaw Control (AYC), which controls the left and right wheels via braking.

The new S-AWC integrated vehicle dynamics control system will provide safe, secure and comfortable driving in various weather and road conditions.

The all-new Outlander PHEV model features twin-motor AWD that consists of one motor at the front and another one at the rear of the vehicle. By taking advantage of the electric motors characteristic high response, high precision and freedom in controlling the front and rear motors, the system optimally distributes the driving force between the front and rear wheels according to road and driving conditions.

Combining this with S-AWC increases vehicle maneuverability in driving, cornering and braking. Conventional models employ a braking control system to control the brake forces in the left and right wheels only on the front, but the evolved S-AWC adds a braking control system for the rear wheels.

This reduces the load on the front wheels and makes it possible to extract the maximum performance from all four tires in a more balanced manner and delivers handling true to the drivers intent for safe, secure and comfortable driving in various conditions.

In addition, seven drive modes can be selected depending on road conditions and driving style. Normal, the basic mode, is optimized for normal driving on paved roads. Gravel mode provides balanced operability and road handling ability on unpaved or wet paved roads, and Snow mode delivers stable vehicle behavior on snowy and other slippery roads. In addition, there are Power mode, which offers powerful acceleration, and Eco mode that prioritizes economic and environmentally friendly driving.

See more here:

New Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV to adopt an evolved all-wheel control technology - Green Car Congress

How do you say no constructively?The increasingly influential Congressional Progressive Caucus faced that question this week as tensions among Democrats mounted over two bills central to President Joe Bidens agenda: a bipartisan infrastructure bill and a $3.5 trillion budget to fund sweeping social reforms.

The standoff underscores both the opportunity and challenge that progressives face. They seek to exercise newfound influence to the maximum benefit of their voters and their party, without sparking a backlash that could hurt both.And damage the Biden administration.

Amid deepening polarization, both parties have had to contend with increasingly feisty wings. The infrastructure bill shows how Democrats are managing theirs.

It would be a huge blow if this just collapsed on them, saysMatthew Glassman, a senior fellow at Georgetown Universitys Government Affairs Institute in Washington. Conversely, he adds, if both bills pass, Democrats could tout a significant list of achievements in their upcoming campaigns.

Many see themselves, and the country, as standing at a pivotal moment in which government has a moral responsibility to step in and help. And they believe their policies could energize the Democratic base and prevent a Republican resurgence at the polls in next years midterm elections and the 2024 presidential race.

But if they overestimate the countrys appetite for such sweeping reforms, at a time when Democrats only narrowly control the House and Senate, it could damage their own goals and President Bidens agenda.

Washington

At the start of this crucial week for Democrats, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Ilhan Omar walked out of the House of Representatives with arms wrapped around each other, looking more like longtime pals than politicians engaged in a high-stakes negotiation.

Its a scene that would have been hard to imagine not long ago, when the speaker issued arare public rebukeof the Minnesota lawmaker, who during her three years in Congress has tangled not only with then-President Donald Trump but also with her own party.

But Representative Omar is also the whip of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, responsible for corralling its members when it comes time to vote. And that caucus has grown dramatically from a once-marginal group to nearly half of House Democrats today, giving it significant leverage.

Amid deepening polarization, both parties have had to contend with increasingly feisty wings. The infrastructure bill shows how Democrats are managing theirs.

Late Thursday afternoon, Ms. Omar and fellow progressives were holding firm in their threat to torpedo a vote on the $1.2 trillion infrastructure billthat had passed the Senate with full Democratic support and 19 Republicans. Though progressives have agreed to support that bill, they aim to force moderate Senate Democrats to first back their massive Build Back Better Act, which includes sweeping social reforms and climate change measures.

The standoff underscores both the opportunity and challenge that progressives now face. They are seeking to exercise their newfound influence to the maximum benefit of their voters and their party, without sparking a backlash that could hurt both. And damage the Biden administration.

It would be a huge blow if this just collapsed on them, saysMatthew Glassman, a senior fellow at Georgetown Universitys Government Affairs Institute in Washington. Conversely, he adds, if both bills pass, it could offer Democrats a significant list of achievements to tout in their 2022 and 2024 campaigns.

Many see themselves, and the country, as standing at a pivotal moment in which government has a moral responsibility to step in and help. And they believe their policies could energize the Democratic base and prevent a Republican resurgence at the polls in next years midterm elections and the 2024 presidential race.

But if they overestimate the countrys appetite for such sweeping reforms, at a time when Democrats only narrowly control the House and Senate, it could damage their own goals and President Joe Bidens agenda.

The caucuss willingness to blockone of the presidents key priorities even temporarily has led to comparisons with the GOPs conservative Freedom Caucus. In members effort to promote small government and fiscal discipline, they frequently bedeviled their partys leadership over the past decade, dooming Republican legislation on health care and immigration, and provoking government shutdowns.

Progressives, not surprisingly, reject that comparison. They insist theyre not seeking todisruptthe Democratic Party orundermine its leadership, but to influence it in a constructive way.

We are for advocating for government to fully function on behalf of the people, says Representative Omar. Our role here is to try to remind our caucus that if we say we are the party of the people and of working families, then our policies should reflect that.

Or asRep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, who heads the Progressive Caucus, put it: The Freedom Caucus is a caucus of no; were a caucus of yes.

Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington testifies about her decision to have an abortion, on Sept. 30, 2021, during a House hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington. Representative Jayapal, who heads her party's Progressive Caucus, rejects comparisons with the Republican Freedom Caucus, saying it "is a caucus of no; were a caucus of yes."

Still, for all their projected optimism,Democratic leadershipmight privately disagree with Representative Jayapals assessment. The longer the current stalemate drags on, the greater the chance that Senate moderates could respond to the lefts hardball tactics by simply walking away from the budget negotiations.

The Build Back Better bill would deliver on many progressive priorities. It includes initiatives ranging from expanded health care benefits and paid maternity leave to free community college and climate change measures. A pollcommissionedby progressives showed that 54% of voters in 10 battleground states supported the $3.5 trillion bill, compared with 43% who disapproved. The poll had a margin of error of 4.5 points.

Democrats plan to pass the bill through a process known as budget reconciliation. But they will need the votes of every Senate Democrat, and on Wednesday Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginiacalled it fiscal insanity to spend so much in the wake of already massive amounts of government spending to address pandemic-related needs.

He and Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who helped negotiate the bipartisan infrastructure bill,had not made anydefinitive counterproposals for a budget dealuntil Thursday, when a memo leaked showing Senator Manchin had told the president this summer that his top line was $1.5 trillion. The Democrat from West Virginia also said any expansion of Medicaid in the reconciliation bill would have toincludethe Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funds from being used to cover abortion expenses.

So on the last day of fiscal year 2021, Democratic leadership was facing an unenviable trio of challenges: passing a bipartisan infrastructure bill; scrambling to fund the government temporarily to avoid a partial shutdown (this bill cleared Congress late Thursday); and raising the debt ceiling before Oct. 18, when Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned all extraordinary measures would be exhausted and the United States would default on its debt.

Were a big-tent party, and were going to get this done, said Rep. Josh Gottheimer, the moderate Democratic co-chair of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus earlier this week. Speaking to progressives role, he added, I think theyve been very constructive in our conversations.

In the past, Democratic leadership has tended to cater to party centrists, who often hail from swing districts or states and face tough reelection battles. At times, that has meant weakening or even stripping out progressive priorities from Democratic legislation.

But as progressives have grown in numbers and gained more leverage within the party, theyve become increasingly bold in asserting their demands.

Theyre stiffening their spine, says Professor Glassman of Georgetown.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont talks to reporters ahead of a test vote on the bipartisan infrastructure deal that senators brokered with President Joe Biden, on Capitol Hill in Washington, July 21, 2021. Senator Sanders has urged fellow progressives in Congress to link passage of the infrastructure bill to success on passing a budget with new spending on health care and climate change.

One reason is that Democratic voters themselves have shifted significantly to the left in recent years. Some of that may be credited to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the first chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which he co-founded in 1991 with five other representatives. Back then, the democratic socialist whoembraced a crusader rolesaw very few of his proposed laws passed.

But after two surprisingly successful presidential campaigns that drew legions of young supporters and arguably shifted the center of gravity in the Democratic Party, Senator Sanders now chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and his allies find themselves in a very different position.

Many progressives have been pointing out that its President Bidens agenda not just their own that theyre fighting for.This agenda is not some fringe wish list; it is the presidents agenda, said Representative Jayapal earlier this week.

Whether it was the primary campaign, or whether this is where [Mr. Bidens] heart always has been, he has genuinely adopted a lot of progressive goals, says Rep. Ro Khanna of California, who co-chaired Mr. Sanders 2020 presidential campaign. And so we have supported the president.

Now the president is in a bind, however, with progressives vowing not to support the infrastructure bill unless or until Senate Democrats commit to the much larger reconciliation bill. Much of the presidents domestic agenda is included in these two bills, and he has been hosting a flurry of meetings all week to try to persuade the different wings to come together.

Senator Sanders, the sole member of the Senate in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has been urging his fellow caucus members in the House not to support the infrastructure bill until the budget is passed. We had a deal, he said, referring to Democratic leaders agreement that the bills would advance in tandem, to assure passage of both.

In light of that, progressives refusal to support an infrastructure bill before the other is agreed on could be seen as an effort to hold colleagues to their promise, says DeWayne Lucas, associate professor of political science at Hobart and William Smith Colleges.

Their main concern right now is theyve made these deals with moderates, says Professor Lucas, noting that in the past when progressives had smaller numbers, their fellow Democrats didnt always make good on such deals. Now one of the issues for the progressive caucus is how to ensure that they get what was promised to them. If anyone is a disrupter, he adds, its Senator Sinema, who may be embracing the maverick brand of Arizona.

Part of the reason progressives are holding firm is the pressure from grassroots activists. About a dozen protesters chanted outside the Senate today as Senator Manchin spoke to reporters, saying he would be willing to support a $1.5 trillion budget a quarter of the $6 trillion that Senator Sanders originally wanted.

Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox.

This package as it is at $3.5 trillion is already the compromise, says David Winston, co-chair of the Medicare for All working group of the metro D.C. Democratic Socialists of America, who sports a Sanders shirt. Fellow protesters held a pink heart with the handwritten slogan, Invest in people not war and a largebanner reading, No reconciliation, no deal!

Staff writer Dwight Weingarten contributed reporting.

View original post here:

Are progressives the bloc of no? They say no. - The Christian Science Monitor

The federal government will narrowly avoid another shutdown as Congress plans to approve funding for agencies and operations through early December.

Congressional leaders came together on a band-aid solution just hours before the end of the fiscal year Thursday night, as spending was set to expire. Because Congress only agreed to a temporary solution, lawmakers will have to address it all over again in 65 days.

And there's scant time to start on a long-term spending solution because there's no shortage of other pressing issues on Capitol Hill: Lawmakers will need to raise or suspend the country's debt ceiling by mid-October. Democrats are trying to cobble together enough votes to pass a massive bipartisan infrastructure bill and a separate economic package, two of Biden's top priorities. And major voting rights and election reform legislation also lies in wait.

Partisan disputes in Congress kept lawmakers from reaching a solution earlier. Leaders of both parties said they wanted to avoid a government shutdown, but disagreed on how to do so. Democrats tried to pass a measure earlier this week that both funded the government and suspended the debt ceiling, but Senate Republicans blocked the effort.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said if Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling, they'll have to do it on their own. By forcing the issue to a party-line vote, Republicans hope to use the higher debt ceiling as evidence of out-of-control Democratic spending during the midterm elections even though a significant portion of the debt accrued came from spending and tax breaks approved by the GOP during the Trump administration.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Thursday's vote on a stopgap spending bill will provide interim funding for the government and keep critical services running during the Covid-19 pandemic. Before it spending expires Dec. 3, lawmakers will need to either approve another short-term solution, known as a continuing resolution, or approve appropriations to fund the government through the end of 2022.

Close calls like this and actual government shutdowns have become increasingly common over the years. In the last decade, there have been three government shutdowns, including a 34-day closure in 2019, the longest one in American history. Since the current budget process was introduced in the 1970s, there have been 20 funding gaps four of which have resulted in shutdowns lasting more than one business day.

The last time Congress approved federal appropriations before the fiscal year ended, with no need for continuing resolutions, was 1997, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Because Congress is so polarized, it's tough for legislation to garner the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. This hurdle is especially difficult "when you're talking about things in the budget process where Congress first has to agree on big, top-line numbers for how much they want to spend across the board and then they actually have to proceed to the hard work of dividing up the pie," said Molly Reynolds, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution.

Appropriations measures also become popular targets for other, unrelated issues because of their "must pass" status, which can ramp up the drama. These combined challenges are why Congress finds itself flirting with shutdowns so often, Reynolds said.

To make the federal budget process more functional, Reynolds said, Congress should develop the appropriations bills individually in their respective subcommittees and bring them to the floor in "minibus," or smaller, packages rather than omnibus packages that put all the appropriations bills together.

"In 2018, we had both the start of a record-long government shutdown and also, earlier in 2018, we had Congress's most productive appropriations year in several decades. Part of what made that happen was this minibus strategy," Reynolds said.

The minibus strategy allowed some of the appropriations bills to pass that year, keeping significant parts of the government funded, even though other parts shut down.

"We don't live in the political world that we lived in when Congress wrote the Congressional Budget Act of 1974," Reynolds said, adding that lawmakers should try to figure out "what are the things about the 1974 process that we think are valuable and that we can keep, and then how do we adapt other parts of the process to recognize the [current] political realities."

While Congress has skirted another government shutdown for now, the debt ceiling deadline still looms. If the debt limit isn't raised or suspended by Oct. 18, according to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, the U.S. won't be able to pay its bills and the country could default for the first time ever. Because so many countries rely on the U.S. economy, such an outcome would have dire and unpredictable repercussions around the globe.

Democrats could raise the debt ceiling on their own through a process called reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority to pass in the Senate, rather than the usual 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. However, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has refused to resort to reconciliation, calling it "risky" and "uncharted waters."

The reconciliation process can only be used once per fiscal year and Democrats are already considering using it to pass their $3.5 trillion domestic policy package. However, the fate of that legislation and the $1 trillion infrastructure bill remains uncertain as the Democratic party is divided over how much money to spend on what programs.

And amid the drama over the federal budget and infrastructure package, two landmark election reform bills have taken a backseat, despite voting rights advocates' urgent calls for passage. The Freedom to Vote Act was introduced earlier this month as a compromise version of the For the People Act. Both the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act face long odds in the Senate if the filibuster remains intact.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

More here:

Congress narrowly averts a shutdown but is still mired in legislative dysfunction - The Fulcrum

The Afghanistan government was the latest addition to the dustbin of failed American diplomatic ventures. As Thomas Meaney said in The London Review of Books, the former president Ashraf Ghani has now joined the ranks of Washingtons failed proxies: Ng nh Dim, Ahmed Chalabi, Nouri al-Maliki, Hamid Karzai. Why did this happen again?

The Taliban created a successful narrative for themselves while enjoying close access to many ordinary Afghan communities and foreign funding. Meanwhile, the U.S. policy of implementing a whole new political arrangement from above proved to be impractical, while there were also too many contradictions in their interventionist policy.

War, nowadays, is about the confrontation of ideologies. A nation has finite resources, but resources of an ideology can be boundless. The Taliban continuously attracted new members by portraying themselves as the defenders of Islam against the godless imperalist American forces. At the same time, they played on the locals instinctive dislike of having their country occupied by foreigners.

In contrast, the U.S. could not spread an effective counter-narrative. Sulaiman Assadullah, an MU graduate student from Afghanistan with experiences in development work in his home country, said that the dream U.S. brought into Afghanistan democratic elections, political freedoms and womens rights had never penetrated into the rural areas and provinces. They may have built Kabul into a metropolitan liberal city, but the extent of modernization was far too little.

The Taliban also operated among the ordinary masses. After getting ousted by the U.S. in December 2001, surviving members of the Taliban simply went back to their villages. They dressed the way ordinary people dressed and lived in houses ordinary people lived in. Patrick Cockburn, a veteran Middle East correspondent, said that throughout the 20-year period, the Taliban commanders were still in the villages and remained very undefeated.

Funding is another important factor. The Taliban was nurtured and backed by Pakistan. The country had tolerated religious schools that trained new Taliban recruits; their security service, ISI, was known to send the Taliban military assistance. The porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan meant that Taliban leaders and fighters could simply cross over to Pakistan to bide their time.

There may be an ethnic factor in Pakistans calculation of supporting the Taliban. The Taliban was mostly made up of people from the Pashtun ethnic group, the largest in Afghanistan. The Pashtuns are also the second largest ethnic group in Pakistan. The Americans backed the Northern Alliance, which was largely made up of northern Tajik and Uzbek warlords. Foreign involvement in Afghanistan had led that war to become increasingly ethnocentric. This had the potential effect of decreasing trust in any national government.

The policy of promoting freedom and democracy abroad adopted by the U.S. sounded great in theory. However, it wasnt that easy in practice. Afghanistan was a largely rural and traditional country. Many had never really experienced democracy. Assadullah said the U.S. didnt educate the Afghan public adequately on running democratic governments. The Afghan government post-2001 was imposed upon from above. It was not something the people had fought for the way Americans and the French did. Assadullah mentioned stories of local government officials leaving their posts before the Taliban came to their areas.

The U.S. also had to balance bringing freedom and democracy with their own national interests. These two considerations often didnt coincide. Professor Heather Ba, who specializes in international political economy, said that Afghanistan didnt have much strategic value in Americas foreign policy plans. She said even though there are mineral mines in the country, nobody has ever accessed them. As time passed, people in America started questioning the purpose of going into that country. One ought to remember that the U.S. only toppled the Taliban after the 9/11 attacks. Back in the 90s, they were supporting the equally undemocratic mujahideen.

Assadullah repeatedly pointed out the irony of the War on Terror since the U.S. would not confront Pakistan despite knowing the latters role in sponsoring the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Championing freedom and democracy certainly gave the U.S. a moral high ground, but that ground can be quite shaky when they also have close relations with dictatorships such as the Gulf monarchies and the Central Asian states. There are American military forces in Kuwait, Qatar and others; a report from the Department of State said that the country had spent over $50 billion in economic assistance in countries like Kazakhstan and the Kyrgyz Republic. It was exactly this kind of hypocrisy that made people lose faith in the U.S.

The humanitarian work carried out by the U.S. was often unsatisfactory. For instance, Assadullah remembered a time when he worked on an USAID project for upgrading the technology in local universities in Afghanistan. Most of the budget ended up paying for international consultants and the team working on the project, with only a fraction of the original budget going into actually developing the local universities.The ineffectiveness of foreign aid diminished public support for their supposed liberators. A 2019 report from USAID showed that an estimated 43% of the 2,231 USAID awards in fiscal years 2014-2016 only achieved half of the expected results in their projects, but they still got paid in full. Such a military-and-humanitarian-aid complex left even an experienced aid worker like Assadullah disillusioned.

This only touches on the surface of why the U.S.-backed Afghan government fell so quickly when left alone. The causes of this failure are debatable, but the consequences are beyond doubt. Scenes of people hanging onto the wings of airplanes, pouring into refugee camps and women burning their clothes and diplomas were the undeniable results.

_In pursuit of racial and social equity, The Maneater encourages its readers to donate to NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, a legal organization dedicated to fighting for racial justice through litigation and education. Donate at: https://engage.naacpldf.org/dBCvDTd9IEiXX_jPkmkT_w2

Edited by Cayli Yanagida | cyanagida@maneater.com

Excerpt from:

The 20-year itch: Reasons behind the US withdrawal from Afghanistan - The Maneater

Mobility is freedom, but just as the slaveholders who founded this country never believed in liberty for all, today too one need only look at a map of Richmonds bus system to see the limits of many folks freedom. Routes that end at the county line and buses that only run once an hour are two of the most visible boundaries that fence in Richmonders freedom. The most ubiquitous and all-too-often unquestioned limitation on our freedom, however, is the farebox. If we want to liberate ourselves from car-dependency, save the planet, and right the wrongs of the past, the bus should be free.

Public good, private payment

The bus doesnt care if you cant afford a car, if your disability disallows driving, or if youve just had one too many drinks. As long as youre waiting at a stop, the bus will pick you up and carry you homeno questions asked. The bus epitomizes a public good: its available to all, and society is better off the more people use it. The problem is that we treat the bus like a private company (and in Richmond it actually is). Unlike other public services such as libraries and schools, we expect the bus to pay for itself, largely on the backs of the working poor who take it.

Most Richmonders dont ride the bus regularly. Many residents of the surrounding suburbs never have. But whether you even know what GRTC stands for or not, you and your lifestyle are transit-reliant. The nurses in your hospital, the clerks at your local supermarket, and the custodians at your office or university represent just a fraction of the folks that rely upon the bus every day to get to work, to pick up their kids from school, and to shop or to seek out healthcare. Without access to fast, frequent, and reliable public transit, much of our economy and our society would come to a screeching halt.

The crucial role high-quality transit plays in our daily lives is easily overlooked by those who dont regularly ride the bus. When youre passing a Pulse on Broad Street or waiting behind a bus stopped to let folks on and off, public transit feels like little more than another vehicle in your wayan inconvenience to your personal commute. From the outside, you can only vaguely make out the bodies of those on board. You know nothing of their lives and their stories. Take a trip with the Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) and you begin to see, understand, and empathize with your fellow passengers.

A dollar and fifty cents to ride may not seem like a lot, but for Tarrance Bryanta new GRTC riderthat amount is the difference between a reliable route to work and walking. It can take up to three weeks to get your first paycheck at a new job, and many people just starting their careers or rejoining the workforce dont have money on hand to finance their commute in the meantime. Thats why Tarrence supports zero-fare transit: I like that its free because at this time I just started working, and if it wasnt for it being free I wouldnt really have a ride to work. I would probably have to walk.

No respect for riders

Politicians can always find funding to address the needs of the wealthy and well-connected. Issues important to those who take transit are often just as ignored as those who tend to ride the bus most: the working poor, the disabled, the elderly, teenagers, and people of color.

Twenty-seven percent of bus riders in Richmond have a combined household income of less than $10,000 per year. Over half earn less than the federal poverty rate for Virginia of $26,500 for a family of four, and a full 89 percent of GRTCs riders have household incomes below the state median. If bus riders lacking affluence werent already enough of a reason for the powers that be to ignore their plight, nearly three quarters of those who take transit are people of color.

In America, we all agree that talk is cheap. For all the verbal praise heaped upon our essential workers throughout the course of the pandemic, we didnt do enough to keep folks on the frontline safe. Instead of introducing substantive policy changes in response to the racial reckoning that was the murder of George Floyd, our society settled on BLM book clubs and empty promises of equity.

The complexities of race, class, and poverty in the United Statesmuch less in the former capital of the Confederacyseldom allow for simple solutions. If our goal is to expand the freedom of our friends, family, coworkers, and neighbors, then eliminating bus fares is one of the most straightforward and equitable actions we can take.

Fund our future

The cost of a years worth of access to GRTC adds up to $720. Scraping together the $60 needed for a monthly pass often proves so impossible for many poor riders that they end up spending roughly $1,000 a year on fares, paying $1.50 each time they ride. If the bus were free like many other public services we all rely upon, Central Virginias poorest would get to keep that cash to pay for other essential expenses like housing, food, and healthcare. Going fare free functions as a backdoor boost to wages by allowing those who take transit to work to keep more of their money.

Eliminating fares may sound like an expensive endeavor, but in actuality the cost is minor. In fiscal year 2019, GRTC collected $4.5 million in revenue from local routes in the City of Richmond, the same routes which are primarily frequented by low-income people of color. That means for roughly five million dollars a year, we could all ride the bus for free whenever we want, as much as we want. Going fare free would also allow GRTC to end fare enforcement, protecting passengers from over-policing and empowering bus operators to avoid conflict with riders who cant afford their fare.

Five million dollars is a lot of money. However, compared to the $33 million the City of Richmond plans to spend on road repaving this year, the $170 million raised annually by the Central Virginia Transportation Authority, or the seven billion dollar budget the commonwealth gives VDOT each year, five million dollars is practically a rounding error. Any or all of these sources could easily eliminate bus fares in Greater Richmond, but we must demand it of our local leaders and state representatives.

The New York Times estimates that 100 cities around the world offer free public transit, with many of them in Europe. But recently, cities in the United States, Kansas City, Mo and Olympia, Washington have begun to implement fare free transit as well. Why cant Richmond be the next city to embrace free public transit? Its easy to tout an equity agenda or hire a diversity and inclusion officer, its much more meaningful to put your money where your mouth is. If we want to honor essential workers and invest in eliminating racial inequities, then we must prioritize the needs of our neediest neighbors and make the bus free permanently.

This essay is part of the Richmond Racial Equity Essays series exploring what racial equity looks like in Virginias capital, but we think the ideas here have implications for cities all over the country. It is reprinted here with permission. Check out the full project, the accompanying videos and the podcast.

Wyatt Gordon is a born-and-raised Richmonder with a masters in urban planning from the University of Hawaii at Mnoa and a bachelors in international political economy from the American University in Washington, D.C. He currently covers transportation, housing, and land use for the Virginia Mercury. He also works as a policy and campaigns manager for land use and transportation at the Virginia Conservation Network. Wyatt is a proud Northsider you can find walking, biking, and taking the bus all over town.

Faith Walker grew up in Richmonds East End and still calls the area home. She currently serves as the Director of Community Engagement for RVA Rapid TransitVirginias only public transportation non-profit, which represents transit riders. Faith has a long track record for using creative solutions to address systemic issues, community engagement and commitment to cultivating long-lasting partnerships.

Read the rest here:

The Bus Should Be Free - Next City

Partisan disputes in Congress kept lawmakers from reaching a solution earlier. Leaders of both parties said they wanted to avoid a government shutdown, but disagreed on how to do so. Democrats tried to pass a measure earlier this week that both funded the government and suspended the debt ceiling, but Senate Republicans blocked the effort.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said if Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling, they'll have to do it on their own. By forcing the issue to a party-line vote, Republicans hope to use the higher debt ceiling as evidence of out-of-control Democratic spending during the midterm elections even though a significant portion of the debt accrued came from spending and tax breaks approved by the GOP during the Trump administration.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Thursday's vote on a stopgap spending bill will provide interim funding for the government and keep critical services running during the Covid-19 pandemic. Before it spending expires Dec. 3, lawmakers will need to either approve another short-term solution, known as a continuing resolution, or approve appropriations to fund the government through the end of 2022.

Close calls like this and actual government shutdowns have become increasingly common over the years. In the last decade, there have been three government shutdowns, including a 34-day closure in 2019, the longest one in American history. Since the current budget process was introduced in the 1970s, there have been 20 funding gaps four of which have resulted in shutdowns lasting more than one business day.

The last time Congress approved federal appropriations before the fiscal year ended, with no need for continuing resolutions, was 1997, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Because Congress is so polarized, it's tough for legislation to garner the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. This hurdle is especially difficult "when you're talking about things in the budget process where Congress first has to agree on big, top-line numbers for how much they want to spend across the board and then they actually have to proceed to the hard work of dividing up the pie," said Molly Reynolds, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution.

Appropriations measures also become popular targets for other, unrelated issues because of their "must pass" status, which can ramp up the drama. These combined challenges are why Congress finds itself flirting with shutdowns so often, Reynolds said.

To make the federal budget process more functional, Reynolds said, Congress should develop the appropriations bills individually in their respective subcommittees and bring them to the floor in "minibus," or smaller, packages rather than omnibus packages that put all the appropriations bills together.

"In 2018, we had both the start of a record-long government shutdown and also, earlier in 2018, we had Congress's most productive appropriations year in several decades. Part of what made that happen was this minibus strategy," Reynolds said.

The minibus strategy allowed some of the appropriations bills to pass that year, keeping significant parts of the government funded, even though other parts shut down.

"We don't live in the political world that we lived in when Congress wrote the Congressional Budget Act of 1974," Reynolds said, adding that lawmakers should try to figure out "what are the things about the 1974 process that we think are valuable and that we can keep, and then how do we adapt other parts of the process to recognize the [current] political realities."

While Congress has skirted another government shutdown for now, the debt ceiling deadline still looms. If the debt limit isn't raised or suspended by Oct. 18, according to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, the U.S. won't be able to pay its bills and the country could default for the first time ever. Because so many countries rely on the U.S. economy, such an outcome would have dire and unpredictable repercussions around the globe.

Democrats could raise the debt ceiling on their own through a process called reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority to pass in the Senate, rather than the usual 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. However, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has refused to resort to reconciliation, calling it "risky" and "uncharted waters."

The reconciliation process can only be used once per fiscal year and Democrats are already considering using it to pass their $3.5 trillion domestic policy package. However, the fate of that legislation and the $1 trillion infrastructure bill remains uncertain as the Democratic party is divided over how much money to spend on what programs.

And amid the drama over the federal budget and infrastructure package, two landmark election reform bills have taken a backseat, despite voting rights advocates' urgent calls for passage. The Freedom to Vote Act was introduced earlier this month as a compromise version of the For the People Act. Both the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act face long odds in the Senate if the filibuster remains intact.

See the article here:

Our Constitution gave us the tools to move forward - The Fulcrum

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Why immigrants are key to the future of the Conservative Party of Canada

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

In the aftermath of Canadas 44th federal election, the Conservative party is at a crossroads. Under two successive leaders, Andrew Scheer and Erin OToole, it has attempted to rebuild its fabled big tent, and failed.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

That tent has taken different forms over the years. From 1984 to 1993, with party leader Brian Mulroney in the Prime Ministers Office, it was composed of an amalgam of Quebec nationalists, Ontario Red Tories and Western fiscal hawks. From 2006 to 2015, with Stephen Harper at the helm and in power, it comprised a microtargeted mix of suburban and exurban Ontario families, bleu Qubcois, and the Western remains of the Reform Party.

In both cases, however, the tent wasnt the only factor for Conservative success. Other elements included fatigue with previous Liberal administrations, and weak Liberal leaders. In 1988, Canadians rallied to the grand cause of free trade; in 2011, a split in the progressive vote allowed the Conservatives to conquer the 905 area surrounding Toronto. And in both cases, the party was headed by two strong leaders, one who excelled at cultivating caucus loyalty, the other a master tactician and strategist.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The tent wasnt the only factor for Conservative success

It is fair to say that neither Scheer nor OToole is cast in either mould. But the failings of the Tories cannot be laid solely at the feet of the messenger; the message is also the problem. As in 1993, the party is divided and struggling to define itself. Is it in favour of carbon pricing, or does it not believe climate change is real? Is it going to ban assault-style weapons, or keep them around? Is it a party of fiscal prudence, or post-pandemic largesse?

A political party is not an all-you-can-eat buffet. The more choices on offer, the greater the likelihood they will be bland and unappetizing, since it is impossible to cook every dish equally well, or appeal to every type of palate. The party needs a signature dish, a recognizable menu, and most importantly, an authentic atmosphere. A French bistro that suddenly offers takeout sushi is not what patrons or voters want. They dont trust the chef to make what he does not know.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Thus, when OToole morphed from right-wing leadership candidate to centrist party leader, he was doomed to fail. Things looked bright for a while, but voters caught on. OToole flip-flopped on the gun issue, could not explain his carbon savings account policy in fewer than 1,000 words, and tried to out-nationalize Quebec nationalists. Voters were left wondering what the party really stood for, and who he really was. And now the party is left wondering what to try next, after its latest attempt at reinvention has failed.

The answer lies in the future of Canada itself. In the wake of this election, Canada is a nation divided, torn between new and old, East and West, urban and rural, rich and poor, right and left. If the Conservatives cannot offer a path forward to heal these divisions, they will be consumed by them. If they are successful, however, they can create not a big tent of convenience, but a grand coalition that will endure.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

There are a number of areas where the party needs to do better. Since the election, commentators have addressed many of these: the need to appeal to younger voters and to women; the need to be unequivocal on such issues as abortion and same-sex rights; the need for fulsome policies on climate change and Indigenous reconciliation; the need to focus on prosperity and affordability; the need for bilingualism and an understanding of Quebec.

To date, few have addressed one critical issue: demography. Canadian women have one of the lowest replacement fertility rates in the Western world: 1.5 children as of 2018. (By comparison, U.S. women have 1.7; Mexico, 2.1). With labour shortages even worse than in pre-pandemic times, someones got to fill in the gap if the economy is to keep growing, and that someone is immigrants and their children. Canada is a country not only built on immigration, but beholden to it.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

For those of us who are first- or second-generation Canadian, the experience of Canada is different than for Canadians whose families have been here for generations. We are the third solitude, and increasingly, a visible one. By 2036, if current trends continue, Canada will be a nation as brown as it is white, with 30 per cent of its citizens born outside the country, in Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, South America and Africa. The division is not about racial difference, however; it is about lived experiences and political expectations. Many of these new Canadians political experiences will bear little resemblance to those of native-born, mostly white, Canadians of European origin. Many newcomers will not have lived under a liberal democracy; for some, right-of-centre parties are more likely to be associated with military juntas than the ideas of Edmund Burke.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Add to this the fact that Conservative heroes of yore like John A. Macdonald are now vilified as Indigenous peoples seek an end to colonialist policies, and it becomes apparent that the Conservative party has more than an image problem: it has an identification problem. For a new Canadian, it is the Liberal party that has staked the claim as the party of immigration ironic when you consider that the first leader of the federal Conservatives (yes, Macdonald) was an immigrant, and the first prime minister not of English or French descent was a Tory (John Diefenbaker, of German heritage).

There are a number of areas where the party needs to do better

The Liberals, in contrast, have been consistently led by native-born members of the Laurentian elite. However, thanks to their initiatives over the years, including the multiculturalism policies of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and the Charter of Rights, the Liberals benefit from an advantage denied to Conservatives: they cannot be tagged as intolerant. In contrast, the Conservatives routinely fall prey to this label, thus potentially deterring new Canadians from identifying with them and supporting their cause.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

It also does not help that right-of-centre parties are also identified, not only in Canada but around the world, with anti-immigration policies. Here at home, it is not the Conservatives, but the Peoples Party of Canada that claims that dubious status but the tag sticks to the Tories anyway. People do not know that Harpers Tories admitted more immigrants annually to Canada than Jean Chrtiens Liberals had; what they remember is the proposed barbaric cultural practices snitch line and Harpers foot dragging on the admission of Syrian refugees.

But those were not the issues that directly affected immigrants. The big change the Conservatives made was to prioritize economics over compassion, notably by reducing family class immigration. That had a personal, immediate and negative impact on millions of new Canadians who could no longer have their extended families join them. Unsurprisingly, this policy was reversed by their Liberal successors.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Ironically, at the same time the Tories curbed family reunification, they aggressively sought to capture the votes of so-called cultural communities, notably in the suburbs of Vancouver and Toronto. However, then-immigration minister Jason Kenneys infamous curry in a hurry strategy produced little more than indigestion. The lesson here is that opportunism will not build connection. There has to be more on offer than the promise of a say in government, or the implicit benefits of siding with the winning party.

That something is making conservatism the worldview, the philosophy, the vision relevant to new Canadians. It is allowing them to identify with and see themselves in its future. To do this, the party has to both talk the talk, and walk the walk.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

First, the walking. Todays Conservative party is not diverse. Its elected membership is more akin to a 1950s golf club: male, older, and white. Only seven of the 119 Conservatives elected in 119 ridings are Black, Indigenous or a person of colour (BIPOC) six per cent. That is down from nine per cent in the past election. In contrast, the newly elected Liberal caucus is 30 per cent BIPOC. And despite the negative experiences of such former BIPOC Liberal MPs as Jody Wilson-Raybould and Celina Caesar-Chavannes, the Liberals can still legitimately claim to more accurately represent the diversity that is our country.

That must change. The golf clubs that have survived and even thrived have expanded their membership, attracting women and non-white players to their ranks. But why would an immigrant join the Conservative party? What would its appeal be? Its a vicious circle: unless there is something that attracts new Canadians, the party will remain that of Harpers old stock Canadians; unless new Canadians see themselves in the party, they will be less likely to join.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

That something is the talking. If it is done right, it will not only attract new Canadians, but will also reinvigorate the partys base. It will create a common bond between new and old, as opposed to emphasizing or even exploiting division.

The party has to both talk the talk, and walk the walk

The key is to reconcile Conservative values with the solutions to peoples problems. For new Canadians, the problems to be solved are those of establishing themselves in a country often very different from the one they left. Finding work, building a home, raising their children and as any child of immigrants will tell you, possibly the most important thing enabling those children to do better than their parents. Education, opportunity and intergenerational advancement are the Holy Grail.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

How do the values of conservatism, and the Conservative party, relate to the immigrant experience? Freedom is a pre-eminent value for Conservatives, and the ability to pursue ones dreams depends on it. For immigrants who come from countries that are manifestly unfree, such as China, or Iran, freedom can be immensely appealing. Conservatives need to realize, however, that the gulf between our government and those of such nations is so wide that even the Liberals will appear to offer sufficient freedom for their purposes. The Conservatives do thus not have a monopoly on the term.

Furthermore, in the mouths of some organizations, such as the Peoples Party of Canada, freedom has become synonymous with hate. Hatred of vaccine mandates and hatred of government masqueraded as calls for freedom in the recent election. The rise of the PPC is a problem for the Conservatives, not simply in terms of votes lost, but in terms of perverting one of the core tenets of conservative thought. It is similar to what Donald Trump did to the Republican brand in the United States.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The discourse of freedom alone will thus not win the day. Enter the role of society yes, Lady Thatcher, there is a society which is also a cornerstone of conservative philosophy. For conservatives, society is built of little platoons, the often hyper-local organizations to which conservatives devote their energy, whether volunteering, donating, or meeting, and from which they draw strength, community and support. In the words of Burke, To love the little platoon we belong to in society is the first principle of public affections.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The platoon can be village, town, church, mosque, Rotary Club, boys or girls club, or an immigrant womens organization. The first platoon, however, is the family. This is why family reunification, far from being a drain on resources, needs to be embraced by Conservatives. It is consistent with the view that the family is the basis for society and that organizations exist to strengthen its bonds. Individuals should be free to make choices but be supported by the community in their realization.

Key to keeping faith with both its base and new voters, is to emphasize that for conservatives, community does not equal government. Conservatives do not believe in big government, but in necessary government. The states sphere of action must be limited to the things individuals and the community cannot achieve on their own, or things that provide greatest economy of scale at the government level. Roads, bridges, borders, hospitals, schools, public security all are legitimate domain for the state, to ensure that all citizens have access to adequate infrastructure and services.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

That does not mean, however, that the state should have a monopoly on them either. When OToole was accused of supporting two-tier health care early on in the election, it backfired, in part because Twitter called out the Liberal party for stripping his words of their context. But when pressed on the issue in subsequent debates, OToole did not defend the position he had taken, which is that he was in favour of more private health care while maintaining the public system. He watered down his discourse to supporting more innovation by the provinces and repeating his assertion that he would increase transfers to the public system. He passed up an opportunity to move Canada towards a system that strikes a better balance between individual choice and state support one that exists in every OECD country save the United States.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Conservatives do not believe in big government, but in necessary government

Ironically, balancing individualism, communitarianism and state engagement lies at the heart of conservatism. As the pandemic has shown us, we are not meant to be islands. Nor are curbs on freedoms during times of crisis a permanent state of affairs, or un-conservative. Winston Churchill did not impose wartime rations in Britain because he was a Bolshevik. He pursued a manifestly un-conservative policy because it was necessary to help win the war. Similarly, a compulsory vaccination policy for your candidates is a means of winning the war on COVID-19. Yet OToole could not bring himself to take this stand, over fear of driving votes to the PPC or offending his base in Western and rural Canada where there has been greater opposition to vaccine mandates.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This is another issue that the Conservatives must address. The Conservative vote is heavily concentrated in rural and Western Canada. Despite garnering 33.7 per cent of the national popular vote, greater than the 32.6 per cent achieved by the Liberals, it was not reflected in the partys seat count. This produces two outcomes: first, the impression that the Conservatives are the party of Western and rural alienation, and second, actual Western and rural alienation.

Western alienation is nothing new. It has waxed and waned over the decades. It flared in the 1970s due to Trudeau seniors infamous National Energy Policy, which birthed a bumper sticker that read, Let the Eastern Bastards Freeze in the Dark. It found its political home in the 1990s in the Reform Party, whose slogan was The West Wants In. Today, for some, that slogan is The West Wants Out,,as embodied by the Wexit party and the Free Alberta Strategy, which would exempt Alberta from the application of federal laws.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Central and Eastern Canada may scoff at these sentiments, but they are no laughing matter. The terrible situation in Alberta today, with its health system failing in the name of freedom, is a direct result of alienation. Jason Kenney acted the way he did not merely because he thought it was the right call, but because he thought his electorate would, too. This has important ramifications for the federal Conservative party, as it saw during the final days of the past election. Because the Conservatives draw an important part of their base from Alberta, they are identified with its sentiments. Voters in the rest of the country will not want to be associated with the Conservatives if they are seen as the angry party of the West. New Canadians will not either. And neither will Quebec.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

One cannot discuss the Conservatives future without discussing Quebec, for its success there is intimately tied to its success in the rest of the country. Quebec voters are notorious for voting en bloc, and for voting for the federal party that is likely to do well in Ontario. But instead of playing to this reality, the Conservatives sought to satisfy Quebec demands directly, by means of a contract with the province, executed in the first 100 days of its mandate. The contract included giving Quebec full powers over immigration powers it pretty much has already thanks to a long-standing memorandum of understanding with Ottawa. But even Premier Franois Legaults blessing wasnt enough to win the day. Instead, a debate question that decried Quebecs Bills 21 and 96 as discriminatory legislation enraged the provinces political class, boosted the Bloc Qubcoiss fortunes, and upended the Tory campaign.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

In other words, promising more powers to Quebec did not work; this was not 1984, OToole was not Mulroney, and there was no sense of honour and enthusiasm about the Tories plans. They were pure electoral calculus. Strategically, the Conservatives would have been better to appeal to Quebecers on the basis of their pan-Canadian strength, and by focusing their efforts on the 905 belt and yes, the immigrant vote and delivering a strong showing there.

For Conservatives, earning the support of new Canadians is the key to unlocking the Grand Coalition. Unless the party can find a path to bridge East and West, new and old, and rural and urban Canada, it will not form government. It risks becoming a Western rump party instead of the national government. But this exercise isnt just about saving the Conservative party, or finding the flavour of the month for the next election. It is also about preserving Canadian democracy. A democracy needs viable alternatives, real choices for voters to weigh. Conservatives owe it not just to themselves, but to all Canadians, to provide one.

National Post

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Read the original here:

Tasha Kheiriddin: Rebuilding the Tories' 'big tent' starts with new Canadians - National Post

This weekend, a political leader will descend on Manchester preaching the old religion, tax cuts and deregulation. Only it wont be Boris Johnson kicking off the first in-person Conservative Party conference since he won with a majority of 80. Instead, it will be the leader of the Reform party, Richard Tice, whose event in the city overlaps with the Tories.

Sitting at 4 per cent in the polls, Reform doesnt currently pose a threat to Johnsons Tories, who continue to lead comfortably over Labour despite a fuel crisis. But the fact that Tice and his team spy an opportunity in Manchester in the first place points to discontent building among the grassroots. Can todays Conservative party still call itselfConservative?

Since entering No 10, Mr Johnson has moved the party to the left on economics, pledging higher spending and distancing himself from the austerity years under David Cameron. He has just committed to a rise in national insurance for both workers and employers, to pay for more spending on health and social care.

His love of spending and big infrastructure projects has caused alarm to his Chancellor, with Rishi Sunak worried over inflation warnings, the cost of living and servicing the national debt.

Meanwhile, the one-time freedom-loving politician who railed against the nanny state has transformed into a more cautious figure.

While some of this can be put down to leading the country through a pandemic and ending up in intensive care himself it means that, while the first conference since the Prime Ministers election victory (the 2020 event was a virtual affair because of the virus) ought to be a celebratory affair, many Tory activists will arrive wondering what the point of the partys majority is.

While this shift to the centre has played out well in the polls, his core base tend to take a different view. Its not a coincidence that some of the harshest criticism of the Johnson Government these days comes from those on the right whether its his former paper, The Telegraph, or MPs in his own party.

It is why this years event could still hold plenty of awkward moments for the Prime Minister and his Chancellor.

Many activists and MPs are still smarting at the fact that this is a tax-raisingGovernment. There are increasing concerns on the Tory right over the partys fiscal reputation. With a cost of living crisis looming as a result of staff shortages, gas price rises, the universal credit uplift suspension and possible inflation, the Government will come under pressure to spend more.

While some MPs are pushing for it, others are concerned. When a new 500m hardship fund was announced to soften the ending of the 20-a-week boost to universal credit, it divided opinion. MPs on the right suggested on Tory WhatsApp that it would add to borrowing and national debt.

Warnings this week from Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey point to turbulence ahead. Mr Sunak can expect to face such questions this week at the conference, while fringes including Boom or Bust: The Economy in a Post-Pandemic World look set to stir up divides. Fiscal Conservatives such as Steve Baker will be sharing their thoughts outside the conference hall throughout the week.

Mr Sunak will use his speech to focus on jobs and the recovery. But the Chancellor will also face a grilling from his own side on the fringes when he appears for an in conversation on Tuesday with the director of the Institute of Economic Affairs and the chief executive of the TaxPayers Alliance. Both think tanks panned the national insurance rise.

The other area that risks a grassroots backlash is net zero. The phrase dominates the titles for the various fringe events and is seen by the Prime Minister as a good news story. Ahead of the COP26 summit in November, Mr Johnson wants to flex his greencredentials.

Yet there is already a storm growing. Several Tory MPs have formed a caucus with which to push to find the real cost of these policies. Expect some kickback from the grassroots in the fringe discussions on the issue. Even MPs on panels could struggle to stick to the script. The recent gas price rise is seen as tricky timing for a push on going green, given the rising costs people are feeling.

Mr Johnson wants to use the conference to return to his domestic agenda and focus on the recovery. The Prime Minister likes to make speeches and he will want announcements to go in them. Just look at Johnsons widely panned lacklustre levelling-up speech earlier this year as a warning of what happens when there is little of substance.

When Mr Johnson addresses his party, his supporters will want more than good news and optimism. They will want to know who is paying for what and what exactly is it for?

Katy Balls is deputy political editor of The Spectator

See the original post here:

Boris Johnson wants a feel-good Conservative Party conference, but a grassroots storm is brewing in Manchester - iNews

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) As conservative political groups mobilize to ban in schools what they call critical race theory, one prominent backer of Republican causes and candidates is notably absent.

Leaders in the network built by the billionaire Koch family say they oppose government bans and efforts to recall school board members over teaching about race and history in schools. While they note they dont agree with the ideas at the center of the fight, they argue the government bans, now enacted in 11 states, stifle debate essential to democracy.

The Wisconsin state Assembly, on Tuesday, said public schools would be prohibited from teaching students and training employees about concepts such as systemic racism and implicit bias under a Republican bill that passed on a party line vote.

Using government to ban ideas, even those we disagree with, is also counter to core American principles the principles that help drive social progress, said Evan Feinberg, executive director of the Koch-affiliated Stand Together Foundation.

That position is in line with the networks long-held libertarian streak. But it has sparked fresh charges of hypocrisy from the megadonors critics. After spending years pouring money into conservative groups, the Koch groups cannot distance themselves from the movement it helped build, they argue.

They have this nice position they want to tout from a P.R. standpoint. But their money has gone to these groups that have the opposite effect on that agenda, said Lisa Graves, board president for the liberal watchdog group Center for Media and Democracy.

The Koch organization first went public with its position last spring, as state lawmakers and conservative groups began passing legislation that bans from classrooms specific concepts, including the idea that racism is systemic in society and the U.S. legal system.

The efforts were prompted in part by backlash to The 1619 Project, a New York Times Magazine initiative aimed at rethinking the role of slavery in the nations history and development.

In a letter published in The Chronicle of Higher Education in May, Charlie Ruger, the Charles Koch Foundations vice president of philanthropy, described Republicans push to ban these concepts from schools as a gag on free expression.

Both learning and research require openness to new ideas and the ability to argue productively, Ruger wrote. That requires standing against censorship.

The Koch political behemoth a multibillion-dollar umbrella of foundations and a political action committee was built by brothers Charles and David Koch out of the familys Kansas-based business empire during the 1980s and 1990s. Though David Koch died in 2018, the network has continued to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into organizations and politics that push for small government, lower taxes, deregulation, free speech, academic freedom and a conservative judiciary.

The organizations opposition to the race and education bans has not kept the groups it has long supported out of the fight. In Wisconsin, parents seeking to recall school board members have received help this year from the Koch-supported Wisconsin Institute for Liberty and Law. The Milwaukee law firm received $310,000 from the Charles Koch Foundation for five years through 2019, the last year with public records available and before critical race theory flared as a GOP rallying point. The money was in the form of grants that were aimed at protecting free speech on college campuses, a Koch spokesman said.

The foundation and the Charles Koch Institute also contributed over the same period about $75,000 to State Policy Network, a conservative think tank that has promoted the bans. However, the grants, also before the 2021 wave of legislation, helped sponsor an annual meeting, an internship and a panel discussion on business, the Koch spokesman said.

Among the most prominent drivers behind the legislative bans was another Koch-backed group, the American Legislative Exchange Council. The Chicago-based conservative policymaking group provides model legislation for conservative lawmakers and has promoted measures to ban critical race theory in schools this year.

The Stand Together Foundation and its related groups contributed $2.7 million to ALEC between 2015 and 2019.

None of it was targeted for limiting schools curriculum on history and race, and was awarded before the issue became a Republican priority, Stand Together spokesman Bill Riggs said.

In 2020, ALEC continued to receive money from two Koch foundations, donations that were earmarked for trade, regulatory and fiscal policy, as well as advocating free speech and providing scholarships, Riggs said.

Riggs did not disclose the 2020 total given. Only contributions through 2019 are searchable through publicly available tax documents. Contributions for 2020 wont be available to the public until mid-November.

Riggs accused Koch critics of a misinformation game that suggests the network is secretly supporting a policy it does not. He noted Koch groups give to a broad spectrum of organizations that align with some of its founders values, if not all of their views.

The Charles Koch Foundation contributed to the Democratic-leaning Brookings Institution in 2018 and 2019 on issues related to foreign policy, Riggs said. Last year, the Koch network helped create Heal America, a faith-based program aimed at fighting racial injustice with love and redemption, according to its website. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban and television commentator Van Jones, a Democrat, have both participated in events.

Riggs declined to say whether the Koch network would refuse to contribute to groups supporting bans on teaching critical race theory, such as ALEC, noting it prescribes in grant agreements the purpose of the money. He also declined to say whether they would rethink support for political candidates who also back the policy.

The Koch-backed political action committee Americans for Prosperity Action spent at least $9.7 million backing North Carolina Republican Thom Tillis in his tough campaign for reelection to the Senate last year, according to Federal Election Commission reports.

Tillis was prominent sponsor of a measure this year to prohibit using of federal money to teach the 1619 Project in elementary, middle and high school. The bill has not advanced in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Endorsements by Americans for Prosperity Action are based on several factors including voting records, statements, how they lead on lead on key issues, as well as how they distinguish themselves as leaders capable of bringing people together to drive solutions, Riggs said.

But there is no single litmus test issue. We recognize no one is going to agree on everything, he said.

Continue reading here:

Conservative Koch network disavows critical race theory bans - WIZM NEWS

Partisan disputes in Congress kept lawmakers from reaching a solution earlier. Leaders of both parties said they wanted to avoid a government shutdown, but disagreed on how to do so. Democrats tried to pass a measure earlier this week that both funded the government and suspended the debt ceiling, but Senate Republicans blocked the effort.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said if Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling, they'll have to do it on their own. By forcing the issue to a party-line vote, Republicans hope to use the higher debt ceiling as evidence of out-of-control Democratic spending during the midterm elections even though a significant portion of the debt accrued came from spending and tax breaks approved by the GOP during the Trump administration.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Thursday's vote on a stopgap spending bill will provide interim funding for the government and keep critical services running during the Covid-19 pandemic. Before it spending expires Dec. 3, lawmakers will need to either approve another short-term solution, known as a continuing resolution, or approve appropriations to fund the government through the end of 2022.

Close calls like this and actual government shutdowns have become increasingly common over the years. In the last decade, there have been three government shutdowns, including a 34-day closure in 2019, the longest one in American history. Since the current budget process was introduced in the 1970s, there have been 20 funding gaps four of which have resulted in shutdowns lasting more than one business day.

The last time Congress approved federal appropriations before the fiscal year ended, with no need for continuing resolutions, was 1997, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Because Congress is so polarized, it's tough for legislation to garner the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. This hurdle is especially difficult "when you're talking about things in the budget process where Congress first has to agree on big, top-line numbers for how much they want to spend across the board and then they actually have to proceed to the hard work of dividing up the pie," said Molly Reynolds, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution.

Appropriations measures also become popular targets for other, unrelated issues because of their "must pass" status, which can ramp up the drama. These combined challenges are why Congress finds itself flirting with shutdowns so often, Reynolds said.

To make the federal budget process more functional, Reynolds said, Congress should develop the appropriations bills individually in their respective subcommittees and bring them to the floor in "minibus," or smaller, packages rather than omnibus packages that put all the appropriations bills together.

"In 2018, we had both the start of a record-long government shutdown and also, earlier in 2018, we had Congress's most productive appropriations year in several decades. Part of what made that happen was this minibus strategy," Reynolds said.

The minibus strategy allowed some of the appropriations bills to pass that year, keeping significant parts of the government funded, even though other parts shut down.

"We don't live in the political world that we lived in when Congress wrote the Congressional Budget Act of 1974," Reynolds said, adding that lawmakers should try to figure out "what are the things about the 1974 process that we think are valuable and that we can keep, and then how do we adapt other parts of the process to recognize the [current] political realities."

While Congress has skirted another government shutdown for now, the debt ceiling deadline still looms. If the debt limit isn't raised or suspended by Oct. 18, according to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, the U.S. won't be able to pay its bills and the country could default for the first time ever. Because so many countries rely on the U.S. economy, such an outcome would have dire and unpredictable repercussions around the globe.

Democrats could raise the debt ceiling on their own through a process called reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority to pass in the Senate, rather than the usual 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. However, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has refused to resort to reconciliation, calling it "risky" and "uncharted waters."

The reconciliation process can only be used once per fiscal year and Democrats are already considering using it to pass their $3.5 trillion domestic policy package. However, the fate of that legislation and the $1 trillion infrastructure bill remains uncertain as the Democratic party is divided over how much money to spend on what programs.

And amid the drama over the federal budget and infrastructure package, two landmark election reform bills have taken a backseat, despite voting rights advocates' urgent calls for passage. The Freedom to Vote Act was introduced earlier this month as a compromise version of the For the People Act. Both the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act face long odds in the Senate if the filibuster remains intact.

Continued here:

Voter registration volunteers are crucial for democracy. They shouldn't be threatened with fines or felonies. - The Fulcrum