Category Archives: Democrat

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Visit link:

Letter: Sununu should consider joining Democrat Party | Letters to the Editor | unionleader.com - The Union Leader

Democrats are facing a firestorm of criticism over a proposal to increase the amount of bank account information reported to the IRS, posing a challenge as they craft their wide-ranging social spending bill.

The proposal is a top priority of the Biden administration, which argues it will help the IRS go after wealthy tax cheats.

But it has come under a barrage of attacks from banks and Republicans, who say it raises significant privacy concerns. Financial institutions have been mobilizing their customers to speak out against the proposal to lawmakers.

Congressional Democrats are expected to make changes to the administrations initial proposal, but are generally supportive of the idea. The increasing attacks on the proposal has prompted lawmakers and administration officials to go on the defensive.

Ultimately, the Presidents proposal seeks to pare back tax evasion by shedding some light on opaque sources of income that accrue disproportionately to the top 1 percent of earners, Natasha Sarin,deputy assistant secretary for economic policyat the Treasury Department,wrote Thursday in a post on the departments website.

As such, it is unsurprising that substantial resources are being deployed to defeat these efforts, because many tax cheats stand to lose from a fairer tax system, Sarin added.

The Biden administration earlier this year released a proposal that would require banks and other financial institutions to report on existing annual IRS forms the total amount of moneythat cameinto an accountduring a yearand the total amount of moneythat cameout of it.

The presidents budget request proposed imposing the reporting requirement for accounts with flows of at least $600. Congressional Democrats have discussed raising that threshold to $10,000 and exempting payments from payroll processors.

The proposal could be a way to raise revenue that could be used to offset the cost of spending in Democrats social safety net package in areas such as child care, education and climate. Treasury estimated that the administrations proposal would raise about $460 billion over 10 years, and has said that a narrower proposal could raise $200 billion to $250 billion over a decade.

The administration said the proposed reporting requirement would help the IRS better target audits and close the tax gap between the amount of taxes paid and amount owed, whichTreasuryhas estimated to be about $7 trillion over the next decade.

If somebody reports an income of $10,000 and they had $3 million go out of their checking account, that tells the IRS thats an individual you might audit, Treasury Secretary Janet YellenJanet Louise YellenDemocrats face growing storm over IRS reporting provision Hoyer signals House vote on bill to 'remove' debt limit threat Biden's IRS proposal could mark the end of privacy in banking MORE said in aninterview with CBS Newsthis week.

The administration said that it plans to focus enforcement efforts on high-income taxpayers, and that audit rates wouldnt increase for taxpayers with actual income of under $400,000.

But banking groups and Republicans argue that the proposal would lead to the IRS receiving additional financial information about a large swath of taxpayers. Theyve expressed concerns about the IRSs ability to keep the information secure, pointing to past instances where the agency was hacked and where there were unauthorized disclosures of tax information.

The implications of this reporting and data collection scheme are serious and far-reaching, said Sam Whitfield, senior vice president of congressional affairs at the Consumer Bankers Association.

Financial groups said that many non-wealthy Americans would still have their accounts subject to the proposed reporting requirement if the threshold was raised from $600 to $10,000. And they said it would be complicated for them to implement exemptions for wage payments.

We think this is a flawed proposal at any threshold, said Ryan Donovan, chief advocacy officer and executive vice president at theCredit Union National Association (CUNA).

Banks and credit unions have been alerting their customers to the IRS proposal and have been urging their members to contact their members of Congress. Donovan said his group is aware of more than 500,000 emails and other communications from credit union members to Capitol Hill.

Were going to keep it up, he said.

Republican lawmakers, who have a long history of disliking the IRS, have also frequently been criticizing the IRS bank-reporting proposal in congressional hearings, speeches and op-eds.

GOP lawmakers on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee this week introduced a bill to bar Treasury from implementing a proposal along the lines of the administrations plan.

We should not allow the IRS to invade the privacy of Americans by snooping into their bank accounts, Rep. Drew FergusonAnderson (Drew) Drew FergusonDemocrats face growing storm over IRS reporting provision Dental coverage for Medicare recipients divides parties The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Alibaba - Progressives ready to tank infrastructure bill MORE (R-Ga.), lead sponsor of the bill, said in a statement. The Biden Administration and Congressional Democrats have clearly demonstrated their intent to instate a broad financial surveillance regime using Americans private financial information.

Congressional Democrats are still working on the details of any IRS bank-reporting provision for their spending bill. A provision on the topic was not included in the bill the Ways and Means Committee approved in September, with panel Chairman Richard NealRichard Edmund NealDemocrats face growing storm over IRS reporting provision Biden's IRS proposal could mark the end of privacy in banking Overnight Health Care Presented by The National Council for Mental Wellbeing NIH study finds mix-and-match boosters effective MORE (D-Mass.) saying at the time that he was still discussing the issue with the administration.

Still, Democrats have been pushing back against criticisms of the proposal. Provisions to get taxpayers to pay the taxes they already owe could be appealing to Democrats if they face pushback within their caucus on proposals to raise taxes.

Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiDemocrats step up pressure on Biden on student loan forgiveness Climate activists target Manchin Democrats face growing storm over IRS reporting provision MORE (D-Calif.) said during a press conference Tuesday that a version of the IRS proposal would be included in the spending package.

Yes, there are concerns that some people have, but if people are breaking the law and not paying their taxes, one way to track them is through the banking measure,she said.

Democratic lawmakers and administration officials have been emphasizing that the proposal would not direct banks to give the IRS details about specific transactions, after some Republicans have inaccurately suggested that the IRS would receive this type of information.

I think this proposal has been seriously mischaracterized, Yellen told CBS News.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron WydenRonald (Ron) Lee WydenCongress needs to step up on crypto, or Biden might crush it Democrats face growing storm over IRS reporting provision Best shot at narrowing racial homeownership gap at risk, progressives say MORE (D-Ore.) said in a statement that the reason Republicans have latched on to this issue as the one to lie about every day is because they know their tax agenda is a political loser.

Supporters of the proposal are optimistic that a version of it is included in a final social spending package that gets enacted into law.

Seth Hanlon, senior fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said there is strong support and a strong understanding of how important it is among key congressional Democrats.

Hanlon added that lawmakers and the administration have more work to do countering the false claims about the proposal.

But those who have been critical of the proposed bank-reporting requirement are predicting that a proposal resembling the administrations plan will not be included in the spending bill.

Steve Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, whose former director now works in the Biden administration, said the proposal is too expansive and thinks bank lobbyists have touched a raw nerve with their customers who are concerned about privacy.

I think at the end of the day, this bank proposal will fail, he said.

Link:

Democrats face growing storm over IRS reporting provision - The Hill

Its common now for Democrats to argue that the agenda they are struggling to implement on Capitol Hill represents the partys most ambitious since the Great Society Congress convened in 1965. Thats a reasonable assessmentbut one that the party today should consider as much a warning as an inspiration. Under the relentless prodding of President Lyndon B. Johnson, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate passed landmark legislation at a dizzying pace during that legendary 196566 legislative session.

Over those two years, the 89th Congress, finally completing a crusade started by Harry Truman almost two decades earlier, created the massive federal health-care programs of Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor. It put a capstone on the civil-rights revolution by approving the Voting Rights Act. It created the first large-scale system of federal aid to elementary and secondary schools and launched the Head Start program. It approved breakthrough legislation to combat pollution in the air and water. It created new Cabinet departments, a new agency to regulate automobile safety, and national endowments to fund the arts and humanities. It transformed the face of America with sweeping immigration legislation that finally undid the restrictive quotas that had virtually eliminated new arrivals since the early 1920s.

It was one of the most productive and impressive Congresses that weve had, says Julian Zelizer, a historian at Princeton University and the author of The Fierce Urgency of Now, a book about Johnsons push for his Great Society agenda. Today, its unimaginable.

Then, suddenly, when the work of the 89th Congress was finally finished, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate during the midterm election of 1966. The Democrats bitter disappointment is a cautionary tale for their party descendants hoping to materially improve their odds in next years midterm contest by reaching agreement on the sweeping economic bills that have divided the party for months.

The lesson of history is that it is extremely difficult for presidents to translate legislative success in their first year into political success in the midterm elections of their second year. Those early achievements can boost presidents in their reelection bids, but in almost all cases they have not proved an antidote to the other midterm factors that cause the presidents party to lose ground in Congress.

Failing to pass their agenda could compound the Democrats problems by disillusioning their base and sending a message of dysfunction to swing voters. But completing the agenda isnt likely to save them from the presidents partys usual midterm losses unless voters also grow more optimistic about contemporary conditions in the countryparticularly the fight against COVID-19 and the economic instability flowing from the persistent pandemic.

Democrats must recognize that the potential upside of [their economic] bills [is] limited for next year, regardless of how virtuous they are in the policy, says Simon Rosenberg, the president of NDN, a Democratic research and advocacy group. Joe Biden was elected to do one thing, which was to defeat COVID. And when he was defeating it, his numbers went way up, and when COVID started defeating him, his numbers went way down. The key to him getting his numbers going back up is he has to defeat COVID and get credit for it. This has to be the central governing and political priority for the Biden administration.

Sarah Longwell, the founder of the Republican Accountability Project, an organization of Republicans critical of former President Donald Trump, likewise says that in recent focus groups shes conducted in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, few voters were following the legislative maneuvering over the Democrats huge agenda. The thing that people care about right now is getting COVID under control, and all of the attending economic consequences relating to COVID, Longwell told me. Not all analysts agree that the Democrats legislative agenda is unlikely to affect the midterms. Many campaign aides and operatives at the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees are eagerly anticipating that if the party reaches agreement on its big economic proposals, candidates next year can run on the trinity of creating jobs (through the infrastructure bill), bolstering families (mostly by extending the Child Tax Credit) and reducing health-care costs (through increasing federal subsidies under the Affordable Care Act and authorizing Medicare to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices). They are especially keen to highlight the lockstep Republican opposition to all of those measures.

The Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, who was one of Bidens lead polling advisers during the 2020 campaign, told me that many voters will view passing legislation that helps stabilize family budgets as an integral part of an effective COVID response. I dont think its a dichotomy, she said. We have got to deliver something to working- and middle-class families. The emergence of the Delta variant, Lake said, surprised and dismayed many Americans who thought the country was on a steady path to recoveryone focus-group participant called it a kick in the gutand now they worry that more unpleasant surprises will threaten their familys health and finances. For women in particular, we have to deliver something to their family, to their kitchen tables, she said.

Read: Transforming America with a one-vote majority

Yet, in the past, delivering on legislative promises has rarely been enough to prevent the presidents party from losing House seats in his first midterm election. (Senate results have varied more.) Thats been true for presidents in both parties.

Like the Great Society Congress, the 191314 Democratic Congress under President Woodrow Wilson was among the most productive ever; it created the federal income tax, the Federal Reserve Bank to stabilize the economy, and the Federal Trade Commission to monitor fraud in the marketplace. When it was over, Democrats lost 61 House seats in the 1914 election.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan pushed his signature tax cuts through Congress, arguably the most significant conservative policy achievement of the past half century; the next year, Republicans lost 26 House seats. Republicans lost 42 seats in 2018 after Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress passed their massive tax cut in 2017.

Bill Clinton lost 54 House seats in 1994 after passing a sweeping budget bill, a substantial crime bill, and the most significant gun-control legislation Congress has ever approved. The losses were even greater in 2010 after Barack Obama passed his stimulus plan, expansive financial-reform legislation, and, above all, the Affordable Care Act, extending health insurance to more of the uninsured than any other federal initiative had since Medicare and Medicaid. Despite, or perhaps because of, all that, Democrats lost 63 House seats in 2010, the biggest midterm loss for either party in more than 70 years.

Why hasnt legislative success in year one produced more political success in year two? Sometimes the answer is that legislative victories for one party provoke an intense backlash from voters in the other. It stimulates your opponents, and it could very well cost you because a lot of people dont like what you do, Zelizer says.

That certainly seemed the case in 2010, when the backlash to the ACA helped ignite the conservative Tea Party movement that powered the GOP gains; and in 1994, when a backlash from gun owners helped doom Democrats in southern and rural seats; and in 2018, when many more voters opposed than approved of Trumps tax cut, according to surveys. (The failed GOP attempt to repeal Obamas health-care law in Trumps first year was also unpopular.) But presidents have suffered midterm losses even after advancing popular ideas: A majority of Americans, for instance, supported Reagans 1981 tax cut, and lopsided majorities backed the creation of Medicare in 1965, polls at the time showed.

A more common problem is that whether or not new programs are popular in theory, in practice, their benefits are rarely fully felt by voters as soon as the first midterm. (That dynamic was a particular problem for Democrats with the Affordable Care Act in 2010.) Another common issue is that no matter how popular a new program might be, opponents can usually pull out one element of it that strikes many voters as illogical or wasteful. A prime example of homing in on a seeming weak link was evident in 1994, when Republicans highlighted a midnight basketball program for young people to portray Clintons crime billwhich many liberals viewed as too punitive because it showered money on police and prisonsas permissive and wasteful.

Democrats point to polls and say everybody wants these bills, but as soon as it passes, Republicans dig up midnight basketball and run on those sorts of things, the Republican pollster Glen Bolger says. And I know that this may shock you, but there is usually waste in these billsand stupid stuff, too.

The clearest modern exception to this pattern of first-year legislative gains and second-year electoral losses occurred in 1934, when Democrats gained nine House seats after the Democratic Congress frenetically approved the initial iteration of President Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal. Republicans also gained eight House seats in 2002, after President George W. Bush passed his tax-cut and education-reform bills over the previous two years.

Those might be the exceptions, though, that illuminate a larger rule. Few in either party believe that the GOP gained in 2002 because of Bushs legislation; what lifted Republicans was the public sense that he had responded effectively to the September 11 terrorist attacks. Even in 1934, though the Depression still exacted a terrible price, unemployment was lower and economic growth much higher than they had been when FDR took office.

No single cause explains all of these results, positive and negative, for the presidents party. But from these cases, the clearest rule might be that midterm elections turn less on assessments of legislation that may eventually affect peoples lives than on verdicts about the countrys condition in the here and now. Medicare and Medicaid didnt cause the Democratic losses in 1966, but they werent enough to overcome discontent over inflation, urban turmoil after the Watts Riots of 1965, and Vietnam. Reagans tax cuts didnt trigger the GOP losses in 1982, but they werent enough to overcome discontent over high interest rates and double-digit unemployment. An old political adage holds that presidential elections are always about the future; midterms seem to be more about today. As Bolger put it to me, voters step outside and feel how the weather is, and if I feel uncomfortable with it, I take it out on the incumbent party.

Maybe the most remarkable proof that current conditions outweigh legislative achievements in midterm elections is a data point that the Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz calculated for me from the University of Michigans National Election Studies covering the 1964 and 1966 elections. According to Abramowitzs analysis of the results, those surveys found that even after Democrats created Medicare, the partys share of the vote among seniors in House elections fell slightly from 1964 to 66, giving the GOP a slight majority among them.

What does all of this mean for Democrats now?

Longwell said her focus groups with Democratic-leaning voters in Pennsylvania and independents in Wisconsin signal that Democrats should expect very limited benefits even if they pass the immense economic agenda now stalled amid resistance from Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.

Bidens theory of the case seems to be: If you can take these big swings and push a lot of money at people, they will reward you by voting for you. And I do not think that is correct, Longwell said. As best I can tell, not only do these voters not have a strong sense its benefiting them; they have a much stronger sense its benefiting people they dont think it should be.

However popular individual elements of the Democratic plan might be, Zelizer says, the 1966 precedent offers a blueprint for how Republicans can neutralize them, at least while voters have not yet fully felt their effects. The attack message back then, he says, wasnt specific to the programs. It was about Skyrocketing prices are on the way; spending is out of control, and that is the trap Biden is potentially falling into. (A political action committee associated with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is already launching ads targeting the cumulative cost of the Democratic program.)

Lake, like officials at the Democratic campaign committees, is more optimistic that even if voters havent fully benefited from any programs Democrats might create, the party can point to them as evidence that it is attempting to alleviate voters COVID and economic strains in a way Republicans are not. People dont blame us for the economy, but they will blame us for doing nothing about it, particularly when we are in the majority, she said. When we get things done, we lift up a very vivid contrast and we pull out of this space were in right now, where voters are thinking, A pox on both your housesyou both are fighting; you both dont pass anything. I dont see how we get a contrast with Republicans if we dont get something passed.

Where Lake converges the most with Longwell, Rosenberg, and other like-minded analysts is in believing that the surest way for Biden to improve his standingand thus for congressional Democrats to improve their odds in 2022is to wrap up the contentious wrangling and reach a deal on the economic plan as soon as possible. Longwell similarly said that although Bidens problems are fixable, voters are impatient for faster progress against COVID-19, even if that means more mandates or other tough measures for the unvaccinated. It is much riskier for him to do less and let COVID persist as a problem, rather than looking like he is taking charge, she said.

Read: Why Biden bet it all on mandates

The biggest midterm losses have typically come after elections (like those in 1912, 1964, and 2008) in which the majority party secured significant gainsforcing it to defend seats deep in the other partys territory. House Democrats already surrendered in 2020 many of the most Republican-leaning seats they had captured two years before. You always have to view midterms in the context of what happened in the previous presidential election, Abramowitz said.

Still, the pattern of first-term midterm losses for the presidents party is so entrenched that escaping it will be difficult for Democratseven with fewer inherently vulnerable House incumbents, and even if Biden can notch more headway against the virus. And yet that gloomy prospect, paradoxically, might help the party break the congressional stalemate over its economic plan. Bolger noted that the near certainty of a disappointing midtermwhether a president achieves much legislatively or not, and whether that agenda is popular or notshould serve as a source of liberation for the party controlling Washington. The counterargument is you might as well pass the stuff you want anyway, he said. Because the odds are, in the first midterm, if you are the party in power, you are going to pay a price no matter what you do.

Read more:

The Curse of a President's Second Year - The Atlantic

India Walton. (Courtesy of India Walton for Mayor)

Thank you for signing up forThe Nations weekly newsletter.

The race for governor of New York wont be decided for more than a year, but potential contenders for the Democratic nomination are lining up on different sides of the question of whether their partys leaders should back the Democratic nominee for mayor of the second-largest city in the state. New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams is all in for India Walton, the choice of Democratic primary voters for mayor of Buffalo. But another prospective contender, US Representative Tom Suozzi, swooped into Buffalo last weekend to endorse the candidate Walton beat in the primary, incumbent Mayor Bryon Brown, who is mounting a sore-loser write-in campaign with substantial support from Republicans. Meanwhile, Governor Kathy Hochul, who hails from the Buffalo region, is taking hits for refusing to endorse Walton. What gives?

Walton won the Democratic nomination for mayor of Buffalo on June 22, prevailing over Brown by more than 1,000 ballots in one of the most widely noted election results of the 2021 election cycle. The upset win for a newcomer over a four-term incumbent with close ties to the administration of ousted Governor Andrew Cuomo, and to Hochul, who served as Cuomos lieutenant governor, gained national attention for lots of reasons. Its not often that sitting mayors are beaten in their own party primaries. And Walton was a candidate with a compelling story of overcoming hardship and achieving big things: A mother at 14 who dropped out of high school but went on to earn her GED while pregnant with twins, she eventually achieved a nursing degree, became a prominent union activist, and served as executive director of the Fruit Belt Community Land Trust, a nonprofit organization that has fought to keep housing affordable in gentrifying neighborhoods of Buffalo.

But most of the attention focused on the fact that Walton would be the first democratic socialist to serve as the mayor of a major American city since Milwaukee Mayor Frank Zeidler left office in 1960. Like other democratic socialists who have run for and been elected to top posts as Democratsincluding US Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.)Walton is bringing a new generation of young activists into the party.

That dynamic was in evidence in the primary election campaign, which saw Walton and her supporters build a grassroots movement to upend politics as usual in an election where she would be the only candidate on the November ballotas there were no Republican or independent contenders.

So, of course, state Democratic Party leaders would be excited to support her campaign, which promises to make Buffalo a national leader in the struggle to provide affordable housing, reform policing, and address economic, racial, and social injustice, right?

Wrong.

Jay Jacobs, the chair of the New York State Democratic Committee, signaled in mid-September that the party was not planning to make an endorsement in the race of either Walton, whose name is on the ballot, or Brown, who tried and failed to get on the fall ballot as a third-party candidate. Why? One way or another, a Democrat is going to be elected mayor of Buffalo, asserted Jacobs, who replaced Brown as state party chair in 2019. Both men have long histories as allies of Cuomo, who blamed low voter turnout for Waltons primary win and announced, I have nothing but good things to say about Mayor Brown. Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

Brown definitely has a long history as a Democratic insider. But hes now running a relentlessly negative campaign against the Democratic nominee for a major post in New York state, a campaign that is relying on big-money support from Republican-aligned landlords and developers.

If a party primary means anything, it ought to secure support for the nominee from the party machinery and its most prominent elected officials. Yet, on Saturday, Suozzi appeared at Browns Buffalo headquarters to deliver a robust endorsement of the write-in candidate. The eyes of the country are going to be focused on Buffalo, declared the Long Island Democrat, who would like to run to Hochuls right in a primary. We dont want to wake up on Nov. 3, and people say, Buffalo just elected the first socialist mayor in the past 50 years. We cant make that happen in Buffalo! MORE FROM John Nichols

Im here to say very, very clearly that we need to elect Byron Brown and defeat the socialists! shouted Suozzi.

The governor, a native of Buffalo who has known Brown for decades, has refused to endorse in the race. When Hochul appeared in Buffalo on Labor Day, Walton was standing nearby. But the Buffalo News reported, Walton was asked to leave the area because the event was an official government event a bill signingand the spots were reserved for elected officials and labor leaders, according to the governors office. Brown remained for the photo-opand got a shout-out from the governor.

Readers like you make our independent journalism possible.

Hochuls approach drew a rebuke last week from Williams, who said, This should be a race where the governor is stumping for the first female mayor of Buffalo. Williams, who challenged Hochul for the lieutenant governorship nomination in 2018 and who has not been shy about suggesting that he might bid for the partys 2022 gubernatorial nomination, has also called out Jacobs and the state Democratic committee with regards to the Buffalo race.

After Jacobs announced a personal endorsement of Hochuls reelection bid last week, Williams declared:

Jay Jacobs efforts to shield the current powerbrokers and power structures from a challenge arent remotely surprising. His role, and that of the highest ranking Democratic officials in our state, should be to uplift Democratic candidates, Democratic voters, and democratic values. Instead, he is clinging to the systems that have empowered him, in the same way he and many others in Albany clung to Governor Cuomountil it was politically impossible to do so, but long after it was in any way justifiable.

Governor Hochul should be using this moment to demonstrate a new direction of leadership for the state party, not continuing the practices of Andrew Cuomos Albany. If she, Jay Jacobs, or any other Democratic state leaders are more interested in supporting Democratic candidates than cynical incumbency protection, they would be focused less on avoiding a 2022 primary, where Jacobs should be impartial, and more on the 2021 general election where they still refuse to endorse the young Black female Democratic nominee for Mayor in New Yorks second largest city as she battles against a Republican-backed opponent.

That description of Brown as Republican-backed wasnt hyperbole. When Brown mounted an unsuccessful effort to get on the ballot as a third-party candidate, Republican Party leaders and prominent conservatives helped gather the signatures. Hes openly taking the support of Republicans, and working with them, said Jeremy Zellner, the chairman of the Erie County Democratic Committee, which has backed Walton. Last week, Buffalos Investigative Post reported that a number of prominent Republicans were among the big donors who have helped Brown raise about $851,000 since he lost the June 22 Democratic primary. In September, the Post reported that Carl Paladino, the 2010 Republican nominee for governor of New York and a close ally of Donald Trump, had circulated an email invitation to a fundraiser for Brown hosted by the owners of a restaurant in a building Paladino owns.

After Walton won the Democratic nomination in June, Paladino announced, I will do everything I can to destroy her candidacy.

Paladino said he was upset with Walton and others who called him a racist after he wrote in 2016 that he hoped President Barack Obama would die of mad cow disease and that first lady Michelle Obama would be sent to Zimbabwe to live in a cave. The Buffalo School Board, on which Paladino sat, voted to condemn his remarks as unambiguously racist, morally repugnant, flagrantly disrespectful, inflammatory and inexcusable. In 2017, the New York State Education Department ordered Paladinos removal from the board after he disclosed confidential information from an executive session.

Buffalos mayoral election takes place November 2. Browns well-funded campaign is flooding the airwaves with ads making false and unsubstantiated claims about Walton. Waltons not quite as well funded, but she has an ad up that says. Im running to make the government work for us, and not just the big money crowd. It concludes with the words

India WaltonThe Democrat for Change

N

Read more here:

Why Wont New Yorks Top Democrats Back the Democratic Nominee for Mayor of Buffalo? - The Nation

Yehyun Kim :: ctmirror.org

Senate Minority Leader Kevin Kelly, R-Stratford, answers a reporters question. Boards behind showed that shots fired have more than doubled from 2019 in New Haven and that car thefts increased by 42.5 percent between 2019 and 2020 in Connecticut.

With sensational stories about carjackings dominating headlines and nightly news coverage, Gov. Ned Lamont sought last week to assuage public fears that crime is running rampant across Connecticut.

The data shows that we are one of the safest states in the country, he told reporters on Oct. 13. Were one of the lowest levels of violent crime in the country.

That isnt the picture that Senate Republicans painted a few hours later, when they held a press conference presenting a different set of data.

Senate Minority Leader Kevin Kelly, R-Stratford, ticked off the statistics on the boards behind him 2021 figures, to date, he compiled from city police department reports and compared to the previous year. A 61% increase in murders in Hartford. A 37.5% increase in New Haven. And in Waterbury, a 28.6% uptick in homicides and 23% increase in car thefts.

To some degree, the dramatic percentage increases in murders Kelly cited are explained by the fact that even small upticks among small numbers can register large percentage changes. But Republicans still see cause for concern in the data.

Were having and experiencing more crime and more violent crime, Kelly said. This is the true emergency that I think is facing Connecticut.

This weeks public commentswere the latest round in an ongoing debate about crime rates in Connecticut,whether those rates warrant some kind of legislative response and, if so, what (and when) that response should be. Republicans would prefer to convene a special legislative session, but in a Zoom pressconference held in response to theSenate Republicans proposals, Sen. Gary Winfield, D-New Haven and chair of the Judiciary Committee, reiteratedthat motor vehicle thefts were at historic lows in Connecticut in 2019, and that state policies have led to areduction, not asurge, in crime in recent years.

That doesnt mean the message is an easy sell to voters, he said, especially given the frequency in which dramatic stories about individual crimes show up in the media.

Data is not sexy, Winfield said. But I think my job is to not just be responsive to the fact that people are feeling something but be responsive to the facts.

But what do the data actually show?

That both parties are right.

Data recently released by the FBI back up Kellys claim that murders and car thefts rose in 2020. Homicides increased from 77 in 2019 to 108 in 2020 as they did across the country, but they comprise such a small percentage of overall violent crime that Connecticuts violent crime rate remained low. Connecticut had the fourth-lowest number of violent crimes of any state in the U.S. Overall, violent crime in Connecticut decreased in 2020; nationally, it increased by about 4.5%.

The report did, however, show a marked increase in auto thefts and property crime overall. Car thefts rose across the country during 2020 but not as much as they did in Connecticut. They rose by around 11% nationally and by about 40% in Connecticut.

Kellys numbers on murders and cart thefts were accurate, too, but the spikes sounded larger than they are.

Small numbers can have large percentage increases. The 61% percent increase in murder in Hartford referred to an increase from 18 such cases to 29. Similarly, the 37.5% increase in New Haven murders starts from a baseline of 16 murders last year to 22 so far. And the 28.6% increase in murders in Waterbury is an increase from 7 to 9; the 23% increase in car thefts reflects an increase from 391 cases to 481.

Republicans are focused on what the data say about Connecticut, not how Connecticut stacks up to other states.

It calls for a response. We shouldnt be playing this numbers game, Well, I think it went down, or it went up,' Kelly said afterSenate Republicans released their own response for dealing with crime, a three-part plan focusing on reforms to the juvenile and adult justice systems, creating job opportunities and making changes to Section 8 housing and rolling back what they see as overreaches in a landmark police accountability bill passed in the summer following the murder of George Floyd.

The Senate Republicans plan proposes around-the-clock GPS monitoring of young people arrested for violent crimes or repeat offenses while they are awaiting trial for a prior charge. It lowers the age at which cases can be transferred to the adult system, allowing 14-year-olds to be tried in adult court, and expands the list of crimes that result in an automatic transfer to the adult system. It also suggests revising a ban on consent searches which state data show Black and Hispanic drivers are more likely to be subjected to, and rarely yield contraband to permit them in certain situations.

Not all of the Republicans plan was focused on punishing those who commit crimes they also suggested making funding available for community programs that address youth trauma, truancy and mentorship needs, and broadening young peoples professional pathways so theyre made aware of the benefits of going to trade school and allowing those schools to participate in certain need-based scholarship funds.

But the parts that do focus on punishment run the risk of exacerbating existing racial disparities in the states justice system, saidIliana Pujols, the policy director of the Connecticut Justice Alliance, given that people of color are already overrepresented in Connecticuts correctional system.

A report released by The Sentencing Project over the summer found that Black youths in Connecticut are more than 10 times more likely to be incarcerated than their white counterparts. And another report published by The Sentencing Project this week found that Connecticut had the fourth-highest disparity between Black and white prisoners in its prison system of all U.S. states.

These are kids of color, and I think one of the things thats very obvious is a lot of the Republican press conferences have lacked diversity, Pujols said. Theres really nobody with them thats representing the communities theyre talking about.

Kelly said the goal of the Republican proposals is to reduce crime by addressing its root causes, which includes improving Connecticuts economy so it doesnt just benefit the wealthy. It isnt just to lock people up.

Thats why we focus so much on the prevention and opportunity, is that so that we dont have more individuals being confined, but less, he said. Were not looking to just arrest people and put them in jail; were looking to actually reduce that and to make sure they have the proper supports and services.

Winfield was unwilling to say whether there is a growing coalition of suburban Democrats who believe they need to respond to crime.

"This is a policy and a political issue, and the solution put forward is both, as well," he said. As Republicans call these press conferences on crime, the fear of which is frequently reinforced in media reports, Democrats' constituents could start to think Democrats need to respond to the problem framed by Republicans, that they're in danger, as Kelly said,"even just cooking dinner in your kitchen"

It's hard to say to a constituent, 'Well, the data says thats not going to happen,'" Winfield said. "So, the easier thing to do, or the more immediate thing to get people off your back, is to respond in the way they want you to respond, which may be to respond in ways that might be more punitive.

But he cautioned against repeating the sins of decades past, when punitive policies resulted in an overfilled prison system and created entire communities often under-resourced and populated by Black or brown residents filled with citizens unable to get a fair shot at housing or employment because of the scarlet letter of a criminal record.

"I don't think the policies that we have had in the past are smart policies, and what I see us doing here, whether it's by intention or not, is walking ourselves back to that place," Winfield said, referring to policies like the 1994 Crime Bill, a sweeping law that still hurts communities of color.Were responding out of emotion and not really getting a clear picture, and I think thats how you pass laws you might not want to pass, that lead to increases in incarceration.

But at the same time, he acknowledged that sobering statistics and national context on crime rates can be little solace for survivors of crime.

"It's a real experience for somebody."

CT Mirror Reporter Mark Pazniokas contributed to this story.

See the original post here:

Republicans and Democrats disagree on crime. What do the data show? - The CT Mirror

Instead, he said, national Democratic leaders treated Texas like a piggy bank, raising money from donors who lived there for campaigns in other states. Nobody believed Texas could be won, but it is a different place today, he said.

Indeed, the margins for Republicans have shrunk or stayed the same in presidential elections in Texas over the last decade. In 2012, Republican Senator Mitt Romney won Texas with 57 percent of the vote. In 2016, Donald J. Trump earned 52 percent. Last year, Mr. Trump again won 52 percent.

Democratic spending has at the same time grown over the last several cycles: While about $75 million went to Democratic candidates in the state in 2016, roughly $213 million went to Democratic candidates in 2020. That 2020 number was still dwarfed by the $388 million spent on Republican candidates, according to Open Secrets, which tracks political spending across the country.

Because of Texas size, both Democrats and Republicans spend more money there than in nearly any other state in the country. But the percentage spent on Democratic candidates is one of the lowest in the country. Roughly 35 percent of all political spending in Texas goes toward Democrats, according to Open Secrets. In Wisconsin, a key swing state in every election, 49 percent goes toward Democrats.

There have been some high-profile attempts at investing in the state before: Michael R. Bloombergs campaign spent several million dollars for Joe Biden during the 2020 presidential primary. In 2014, Battleground Texas, an effort led by former Obama aides, spent millions only to have every Democrat lose in statewide elections.

Rafael Anchia, a Democratic state lawmaker from Dallas who is the chairman of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, said Mr. ORourkes campaign was the only statewide Democratic effort in recent memory with a large enough budget to reach across the state. Mr. Anchia said that like other Texas Democrats, he has made the case to national funders that the state could be competitive.

No longer is Texas considered this fools gold, he said. It has demographics similar to Californias but has been a low-turnout, low-voting state.

See the article here:

Why Democrats Say Young Voters Are Crucial to Flipping Texas - The New York Times

3. How should a Democrat respond to questions concerning intergenerational poverty, nonmarital births and the issue of fatherlessness?

In an email, Teixeira addressed affirmative action:

Affirmative action in the sense of, say, racial preferences has always been unpopular and continues to be so. The latest evidence comes from the deep blue state of California which defeated an effort to reinstate race and gender preferences in public education, employment and contracting by an overwhelming 57-43 margin. As President Obama once put it: We have to think about affirmative action and craft it in such a way where some of our children who are advantaged arent getting more favorable treatment than a poor white kid who has struggled more. There has always been a strong case for class-based affirmative action which is perhaps worth revisiting rather than doubling down on race-based affirmative action.

Teixeira on Kendis arguments:

It is remarkable how willing liberal elites have been to countenance Kendis extreme views which ascribe all racial disparities in American society to racism and a system of untrammeled white supremacy (and only that), insist that all policies/actions can only be racist or anti-racist in any context and advocate for a Department of Anti-Racism staffed by anti-racist experts who would have the power to nullify any and all local, state and federal legislation deemed not truly anti-racist (and therefore, by Kendis logic, racist). These ideas are dubious empirically, massively simplistic and completely impractical in real world terms. And to observe they are politically toxic is an understatement.

The left, in Teixeiras view,

has paid a considerable price for abandoning universalism and for its increasingly strong linkage to Kendi-style views and militant identity politics in general. This has resulted in branding the party as focused on, or at least distracted by, issues of little relevance to most voters lives. Worse, the focus has led many working-class voters to believe that, unless they subscribe to this emerging worldview and are willing to speak its language, they will be condemned as reactionary, intolerant, and racist by those who purport to represent their interests. To some extent these voters are right: They really are looked down upon by elements of the left typically younger, well-educated, and metropolitan who embrace identity politics and the intersectional approach.

In March, Halpin wrote an essay, The Rise of the Neo-Universalists, in which he argued that

there is an emerging pool of political leaders, thinkers and citizens without an ideological home. They come from the left, right, and center but all share a common aversion to the sectarian, identity-based politics that dominates modern political discourse and the partisan and media institutions that set the public agenda.

He calls this constituency neo-universalists and says that they are united by a vision of American citizenship based on the core belief in the equal dignity and rights of all people. This means, he continued,

not treating people differently based on their gender or their skin color, or where they were born or what they believe. This means employing collective resources to help provide for the general welfare of all people in terms of jobs, housing, education, and health care. This means giving people a chance and not assuming the worst of them.

How, then, would neo-universalism deal with gender- and race-based affirmative action policies?

In terms of affirmative action, neo-universalism would agree with the original need and purpose of affirmative action following the legal dismantling of racial and gender discrimination, Halpin wrote in an email:

America needed a series of steps to overcome the legal and institutional hurdles to their advancement in education, the workplace, and wider life. Fifty years later, there has been tremendous progress on this front and we now face a situation where ongoing discrimination in favor of historically discriminated groups is hard to defend constitutionally and will likely hit a wall very soon. In order to continue ensuring that all people are integrated into society and life, neo-universalists would favor steps to offer additional assistance to people based on class- or place-based measures such as parental income or school profiles and disparities, in the case of education.

What did Halpin think about Kendis views?

A belief in equal dignity and rights for all, as expressed in neo-universalism and traditional liberalism, rejects the race-focused theories of Kendi and others, and particularly the concept that present discrimination based on race is required to overcome past discrimination based on race. There is no constitutional defense of this approach since you clearly cannot deprive people of due process and rights based on their race.

In addition, theories like these, in Halpins view, foster sectarian racial divisions and encourage people to view one another solely through the lens of race and perceptions of who is oppressed and who is privileged. Liberals, he continued, spent the bulk of the 20th century trying to get society not to view people this way, so these contemporary critical theories are a huge step backward in terms of building wider coalitions and solidarity across racial, gender, and ethnic lines.

On the problem of intergenerational poverty, Halpin argued:

Reducing and eradicating poverty is a critical focus for neo-universalists in the liberal tradition. Personal rights and freedom mean little if a person or family does not have a basic foundation of solid income and work, housing, education, and health care. Good jobs, safe neighborhoods, and stable two-parent families are proven to be critical components of building solid middle class life. Although the government cannot tell people how to organize their lives, and it must deal with the reality that not everyone lives or wants to live in a traditional family, the government can take steps to make family life more affordable and stable for everyone, particularly for those with children and low household income.

Although the issue of racial and cultural tension within the Democratic coalition has been the subject of debate for decades, the current focus among Democratic strategists is on the well-educated party elite.

David Shor, a Democratic data analyst, has emerged as a central figure on these matters. Shors approach was described by my colleague Ezra Klein last week. First, leaders need to recognize that the party has become too unrepresentative at its elite levels to continue being representative at the mass level and then Democrats should do a lot of polling to figure out which of their views are popular and which are not popular, and then they should talk about the popular stuff and shut up about the unpopular stuff.

How can Democrats defuse inevitable Republican attacks on contemporary liberalisms unpopular stuff to use Kleins phrase much of which involves issues related to race and immigration along with the disputes raised by identity politics on the left?

Shor observes, Weve ended up in a situation where white liberals are more left wing than Black and Hispanic Democrats on pretty much every issue: taxes, health care, policing and even on racial issues or various measures of racial resentment. He adds, So as white liberals increasingly define the partys image and messaging, thats going to turn off nonwhite conservative Democrats and push them against us.

See the rest here:

Opinion | Democrats Cant Just Give the People What They Want - The New York Times

Democrats are struggling to break through on their sweeping social spending bill amid a laser-like focus on the price tag and high-profile squabbles.

Democratic leadership has set an end-of-the-month deadline to get both the spending package and a Senate-passed infrastructure bill to President BidenJoe BidenHouse votes to raise debt ceiling On The Money House kicks debt ceiling standoff to December Overnight Health Care Presented by The National Council for Mental Wellbeing Progressives: Medicare benefit expansions 'not negotiable' MORE, as they try to turn the page on weeks of infighting that has spotlighted internal divisions and thrown the partys legislative agenda into limbo.

The effort to show momentum comes as congressional Democrats and Biden have seen their poll numbers slip as they creep deeper into the year. And while the ideas behind the spending bill are popular with voters, a CBS News poll released this week found that only 10 percent of Americans knew a lot about the specifics and 57 percent indicated they didnt know any details about the multitrillion-dollar proposal.

Part of our problem I can say this as a Democrat is that we havent talked enough about the impact on peoples lives, said Sen. Bob CaseyRobert (Bob) Patrick CaseyBuilding back better by investing in workers and communities Barletta holds wide lead over GOP rivals in early poll of Pennsylvania governor race Democrats downplay deadlines on Biden's broad spending plan MORE (D-Pa.), who argued that the issue dates back to messaging around the March coronavirus relief bill.

Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiHouse votes to raise debt ceiling On The Money House kicks debt ceiling standoff to December Overnight Health Care Presented by The National Council for Mental Wellbeing Progressives: Medicare benefit expansions 'not negotiable' MORE (D-Calif.), asked if Democrats need to do a better job selling the spending package, said the news media should do a better job of explaining it.

I think you all could do a better job of selling it, to be very frank with you, because every time I come here, I go through the list. ... It is a vast bill, it has a lot in it and we will have to continue to make sure the public does. But whether they know it or not, they overwhelmingly support it, Pelosi told reporters.

Democrats argue part of their problem is an intense media focus on the price tag for the reconciliation bill, rather than the potential benefits for residents.

The CBS News poll found that the potential cost of the bill topped a list of what Americans had heard about the legislation. Fifty-nine percent of respondents said they had heard about $3.5 trillion in spending, in line with the 58 percent who said they had heard about tax increases for high-income earners. Those two figures are significantly above the 40 percent who said they had heard about lowering drug prices under Medicare or expanding Medicare to cover hearing, vision and dental two big priorities for Democrats.

During a recent discussion with reporters about changes to the top-line figure, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie SandersBernie SandersOvernight Health Care Presented by The National Council for Mental Wellbeing Progressives: Medicare benefit expansions 'not negotiable' Pelosi enters pivotal stretch on Biden agenda Green group pressures Sinema to spell out climate agenda MORE (I-Vt.) argued that reporters were getting pulled back into the game.

Maybe your question should be, Does democracy survive if the Congress doesnt do what the American people want? Sanders said.

Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenHow Democrats can rebuild their 'blue wall' in the Midwest Building back better by investing in workers and communities Throttling free speech is not the way to fix Facebook and other social media MORE (D-Mass.), asked during an MSNBC interview about the top-line figure, said that was absolutely the wrong question and the wrong way to go about this.

It is, What do we need to get done? We need child care in America, we need to expand health care coverage in America, and we need to take a big whack at the climate crisis, she added.

The struggle to keep the focus on the benefits of the bill, rather than the overall size of the legislation, comes as Bidens poll numbers have slipped. More than 49 percent of respondents disapprove of Bidens handling of the job, compared to 44.5 percent who approve, according to a FiveThirtyEight compilation of recent polling.

A growing number of voters think congressional Democrats are underperforming expectations. Twenty-four percent of Democrats said in June that Democratic lawmakers had accomplished less than expected, compared to 37 percent who said the same in October, according to a Morning Consult-Politico poll.

Democrats arent just struggling to drive home the details of their plan to voters; theyve also been unable to secure breakthroughs with each other that would put Bidens bill on a glide path.

Congressional Democrats previously cleared a budget resolution that allows them to pass a spending bill of up to $3.5 trillion without needing to break a 60-vote legislative filibuster in the Senate, meaning they can bypass Republicans.

But since then, Democrats have been locked in constant, headline-grabbing rounds of infighting, including the White House vs. Congress, the House vs. Senate, moderates vs. leadership and moderates vs. progressives.

Biden and congressional leaders are trying to find a way to bridge a multitrillion-dollar gap between the $3.5 trillion ceiling for how high Democrats and moderates can go. Sen. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinOvernight Health Care Presented by The National Council for Mental Wellbeing Progressives: Medicare benefit expansions 'not negotiable' Pelosi enters pivotal stretch on Biden agenda Retreating economy creates new hurdle for Democrats in 2022 MORE (D-W.Va.), a key centrist, has said his top-line is $1.5 trillion.

Asked about the final dollar amount on Tuesday, Pelosi indicated that those talks are ongoing.

If there are fewer dollars to spend, there are choices to be made, Pelosi said. I mean, were still talking about a couple of trillion dollars, but its not you know, its much less.

The White House has thrown out a range of roughly $2 trillion, an area where several Senate Democrats have predicted theyll ultimately end up.

But that still leaves Democrats with painful decisions about what to include in their slimmed-down bill, with some interested in focusing on a smaller number of programs that they can invest heavily in, while progressives are pushing to go broader even if it means approving those programs for a shorter period.

Im of a mind that you can argue either side. But I would argue that if its a good program, popular with the American people, theyll find a way to extend it, said Sen. Dick DurbinDick DurbinPress: Where's Merrick Garland when we need him? Democrats set up chaotic end-of-year stretch The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - After high drama, Senate lifts debt limit MORE (Ill.), the No. 2 Senate Democrat. What we need is a number and then we need to do our best.

Manchin has outlined a small package that is centered around reforms to the 2017 GOP tax law, as well as help for children and seniors. Sen. Jon TesterJonathan (Jon) TesterThe Hill's 12:30 Report: Debt ceiling fight punted to December Schumer feels heat to get Manchin and Sinema on board Senate confirms Biden's controversial land management pick MORE (D-Mont.) told CNN that he would prefer fewer programs for a longer period of time, adding that there was risk that a bill filled with more than a dozen programs could be confusing to explain.

But progressives, while stressing that they are willing to negotiate, are pushing for Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten SinemaKyrsten SinemaOvernight Energy & Environment Presented by ExxonMobil FEMA to review floodplain building codes Pelosi enters pivotal stretch on Biden agenda Retreating economy creates new hurdle for Democrats in 2022 MORE (D-Ariz.) to be more specific about what they could live with.

The time for us to be negotiating with ourselves is over, and I think it is absolutely incumbent on the two senators ... to start telling us what they want, Sanders said.

And they are doubling down on their push to put a smaller amount of money into more programs, rather than dropping items from the bill altogether. Progressives view the reconciliation bill as the best chance for getting many of the partys priorities through Congress.

Our members have made clear that they support the idea of keeping our five priority areas, Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalOvernight Health Care Presented by The National Council for Mental Wellbeing Progressives: Medicare benefit expansions 'not negotiable' Pelosi enters pivotal stretch on Biden agenda Jayapal fundraising off Pelosi comments about smaller spending package MORE (D-Wash.) told reporters, but if we need to cut some of them back to a fewer number of years we would be willing to do that.

The rest is here:

Democrats struggle to gain steam on Biden spending plan | TheHill - The Hill

You will note that this banal-seeming wisdom is not an ideological litmus test: Where left-wing ideas are popular, Shor Thought would have Democrats talk about them more. But where they are unpopular, especially with the kind of voters who hold the key to contested Senate races, Democrats need a way to defuse them or hold them at a distance.

Thus a popularist candidate might be a thoroughgoing centrist in some cases, and in others a candidate running the way Bernie Sanders did in 2016, stressing the most popular ideas in the social-democratic tool kit. But in both cases such candidates would do everything in their power not to be associated with ideas like, say, police abolition or the suspension of immigration enforcement. Instead they would imitate the way Obama himself, in his first term, tried to finesse issues like immigration and same-sex marriage, sometimes using objectively conservative rhetoric and never getting way out ahead of public opinion.

Which is easier said than done. For one thing, the Democratic Partys activists have a different scale of power in the world of 2021 than the world of 2011, and the hypothetical popularist politician cant make their influence and expectations just go away. For another, as my colleague Nate Cohn points out, Obama in 2011 was trying to keep white working-class voters in the Democratic fold, while the popularist politician in 2022 or 2024 would be trying to win them back from the G.O.P. a much harder thing to achieve just by soft-pedaling vexatious issues.

At the very least a Democratic strategy along these lines would probably need to go further along two dimensions. First, it would need to overtly attack the new progressivism not on every front but on certain points where the language and ideas of the progressive clerisy are particularly alienated from ordinary life.

For instance, popularist Democrats would not merely avoid a term like Latinx, which is ubiquitous in official progressive discourse and alien to most U.S. Hispanics; they would need to attack and even mock its use. (Obviously this is somewhat easier for the ideal popularist candidate: an unwoke minority politician in the style of Eric Adams.)

Likewise, a popularist candidate ideally a female candidate on the stump in a swing state might say something like: I want this to be a party for normal people, and normal people say mother, not birthing person.

Instead of reducing the salience of progressive jargon, the goal would be to raise its salience in order to be seen to reject it much as Donald Trump in 2016 brazenly rejected unpopular G.O.P. positions on entitlements that other Republican rivals were trying to merely soft-pedal.

More here:

Opinion | How Democrats Can Save Themselves - The New York Times

Significantly, the proposal would not put the millions of undocumented immigrants on a direct path to citizenship the new measure alone would not entitle them to immediately get green cards. Immigrants currently eligible for a green card, such as the parents of adult U.S. citizens, would still be able to pursue citizenship under the plan.

Supporters of the plan have argued that the watered-down proposal should satisfy the parliamentarian, who had criticized the size of earlier versions.

The legislation would offer undocumented immigrants not just protection from deportation, but also the ability to obtain a work permit a point that immigration advocates say should more clearly connect the provision to the federal budget, making it easier for the parliamentarian to allow it under the rules of reconciliation.

This is a last-ditch effort to try and salvage something for the reconciliation process that can provide some level of protection for the undocumented while Democrats hold control of the Congress, said Cris Ramn, an immigration consultant based in Washington, adding that it is not necessarily I think where proponents wanted to land.

The Democratss plan would include most undocumented immigrants who entered the United States before Jan. 1, 2011, and could help between 7 million and 8 million people, the people familiar with the plan said. It would allow those covered to travel out of the country with the approval of Homeland Security.

The proposal essentially codifies an enhanced version of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program introduced by President Barack Obama in 2012, giving work permits and legal status to people who came to the United States before 2012 and have lived in the country continuously since then.

My guiding principle throughout the ongoing reconciliation process has been providing a pathway to citizenship for the largest swath of the undocumented community, said Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, who has worked on the issue, said in a statement. In spite of the parliamentarians recent negative opinions, I will continue to work with my colleagues and a broad coalition of groups, including advocates, to find a path forward.

Originally posted here:

Democrats Scramble to Keep Immigration Overhaul Alive - The New York Times