Category Archives: Democrat

On a sweltering morning in Harvard Square, Leah Samura strode through the future home of a recreational marijuana shop she plans to open this fall and marveled at the irony of the location: Thestore where she will soon sell legal pot was once a police station.

"To be a Black woman in Harvard Square with a cannabis shop that used to be a police station is just an amazing opportunity," Samura said.

Launching her store,Yamba Boutique,has not been easy. Marijuana may be legal in Massachusetts and many other states, but a federal prohibition makes banks wary of issuing business loans to cannabis companies.

Democrats and Republicans in Washington increasingly agree it is time to legalize marijuana at the federal level; the trouble is lawmakers don't see eye to eye on how to do it.

Entrepreneurs caught in the middle of this debate often have to get creative. Samura and her husband, Sieh who is leading the plan for a second Yamba location, in Cambridge's Central Square have managed to pay some bills by supplying other retailers with a cannabis product they developed.

"It is a cannabis-infused personal lubricant," Leah Samura explained. "It was designed to really help women deal with some of the issues that we have down there."

The product's sales are not enough to cover all the costs of getting a business off the ground, however, so the Samuras turned to a private investor named Sean Hope. Though Hope is a successful attorney and real estate developer, the new cannabis company is a stretch even for him.

"I have essentially leveraged my family's worth in real estate to be able to participate," he said. "There's tremendous risk."

Lifting the federal marijuana ban could mitigate the risk by easing bank lending.

It also could bring the law in line with public opinion. In a recent Pew poll, 91% of American adults said marijuana should at least be legal for medical use, and 60% backed recreational use.Plus the vast majority of states have legalized medical or recreational marijuana already.

Yet Democrats and Republicans are in a stalemate.

"All we want is strictly to legalize it," saidTom Mountain, vice chair of the Massachusetts Republican Party, which supports a relatively straightforward legalization proposal by GOP congressmen Don Young of Alaska and David Joyce of Ohio.

"Now, the Democrats, on the other hand, they want to add a surtax to it," Mountain continued. "And then they want to divert the money to this program and that program. It's so typical. It's really so typical."

A Democratic bill called the MORE Act includes clearing some criminal records and funding social justice efforts with a 5% to 8% sales tax. MORE stands for Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement.

"I think it confronts the injustices of the past and charts a better path forward and gives people back their lives," said Rep.Ayanna Pressley, a cosponsor.

Studies show cannabis law enforcement disproportionately affects people of color, so Pressley argues it is only fair that people of color reap financial rewards from cannabis legalization.

Sieh Samura worries that is unlikely to happen without the special provisions in the MORE Act.

"Equity considerations for a fair market and the long history of cannabis prohibition and all the people that have been harmed there have to be part of the equation or else you will not be able to build a healthy, sustainable market," he said.

Still, Congress could legalize cannabis at the federal level and leave it up to states to launch equity initiatives, if they see fit. Some, like Massachusetts, already have such programs.

But a bipartisan deal does not appear imminent. The House passed a version of the MORE Act last year, only to see it stall in the Senate. The same could happen again.

Excerpt from:

Republicans And Democrats Are Divided Over Marijuana. Businesses Are Caught In The Middle - WBUR

Former Georgia state House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams. AP Photo/Brynn Anderson, File

Trump said that the GOP "might have been better" with Democrat Stacey Abrams as Georgia's governor.

The former president continues to take digs at Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp.

Last year, Kemp rejected Trump's entreaties to overturn President Biden's win in Georgia.

Sign up for the 10 Things in Politics daily newsletter.

Former President Donald Trump still has Georgia on his mind.

After Joe Biden narrowly won the state in last year's presidential race, Trump prodded Republican Gov. Brian Kemp to convene the conservative-led state legislature in order to overturn the results and pressured GOP Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find" additional votes to ensure a statewide win.

Trump's entreaties were rejected, but he has continued to attack both men for what he says was an unfair election process in the state, withholding an endorsement of Kemp in his 2022 reelection campaign and backing Rep. Jody Hice in a Republican secretary of state primary over Raffensperger.

Read more: How Trump could use his relationship with Putin and Russia to skirt prosecution back in the USA

In 2018, Kemp's Democratic opponent was former state House Minority Leader and voting-rights activist Stacey Abrams.

The race was highly competitive, with Kemp edging out Abrams, by 1.4 percentage points, 50.2%-48.8%, the smallest margin in a Georgia governor's race since 1966.

Trump was a staunch supporter of Kemp in his first race, but that goodwill has since dried up.

During his first post-presidential rally in Ohio on Saturday, the former president suggested that Abrams might have been a more preferable choice for the GOP than Kemp.

"By the way, we might have been better if she did win for governor of Georgia, if you want to know the truth," Trump said. "We might have had a better governor if she did win."

Trump has not endorsed any of the lesser-known candidates running against Kemp in the GOP gubernatorial primary, but the former president could play a decisive role in the immediate future of the state party.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Read more here:

Trump suggests that Republicans might have been better off if Democrat Stacey Abrams was Georgia's governor instead of Brian Kemp - Yahoo News

Democratic Reps. Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Cori Bush (Mo.) and other progressives are introducing new legislation seeking to transform the nations public safety response by funding and researching non-carceral alternatives to police.

The Peoples Response Act, co-led by Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), would create a new public safety agency in the Department of Health and Human Services to fund research and grants into health-centered investments in public safety.

This would include launching a federal first responders unit to support states and local governments with emergency health crises, as well as some $2.5 billion for those governments and community organizations to hire first responders who are mental health and substance abuse counselors.

For too long, our flawed approach to public safety has centered criminalization, surveillance and incarceration, rather than care, justice and healing, Pressley said in a news release.

Bush said that the vision for the legislation is to transform public safety into a system of care rather than criminalization, healing rather than incarceration, and prevention rather than policing.

Last year, in the wake of the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and other Black people, activists renewed calls to defund police departments and reinvest in communities, namely in alternative responses to 911 calls, including with mental health expert responders.

In several high-profile cases, people have been killed by police after a 911 call seeking support for a mental health crisis or substance abuse issue.

In 2019, Fort Worth police shot and killed Atatiana Jefferson, a 28-year-old Black woman, in her own home after responding to a neighbors request for a welfare check.

In January, a police officer in Killeen, Texas, fatally shot Patrick Warren, who was Black and unarmed, on the lawn of his home, after his family called for mental health support.

And earlier this year, after a neighbor called 911 reporting a man who appeared drunk in a park in Alameda, California, police arrived and handcuffed Mario Gonzalez, thenkneeled on his back for minutes, killing the 26-year-old Latino father.

Since the wave of protests last summer against racist police violence, some cities have responded by redirecting funds budgeted for law enforcement to alternative public safety efforts.

Last week in Oakland, California, for instance, the city council voted to use some $18 million (out of an over $300 million annual police budget) to fund alternatives to policing, including having unarmed fire department staff respond to nonviolent 911 calls.

Calling all HuffPost superfans!

Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter

Visit link:

Democrats Introduce Bill To Invest In Public Safety Alternatives To Police - HuffPost

Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia offered an analogy to the "Peanuts" comic strip on Monday, comparing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to the character "Lucy" who always yanks a football away from "Charlie Brown" at the last second.

"It's not unlike him to sometimes pull the football out when the kicker is just about to kick it. I've seen him do that before," Kaine told Politico. "And I know that that's sometimes more frustrating for the Republicans than it is for the Dems. He's pretty inscrutable."

Republicans have sometimes been accused of trying to pull a bait-and-switch with Democrats on immigration and infrastructure, promising backing for bipartisan measures that ultimately never materializes.

Kaine also told reporters that Democrats are starting to assemble an up to $6 trillion party-line package which will move through Congress using an arduous path called budget reconciliation. That allows Democrats to muscle through a separate package focused on childcare, climate change, and healthcare without Republican votes.

On Monday, McConnell demanded that President Joe Biden ensure Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi follow his lead and sever any link between the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure deal and the reconciliation package. The latter measure can clear the Senate with a simple majority.

"The President cannot let congressional Democrats hold a bipartisan bill hostage over a separate and partisan process," he said in a statement.

Democrats are likely to trigger the party-line process in mid-July once they return from a two-week recess. But they're clashing on both price tag and scope. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia said on Sunday he would support up to a $2 trillion economic package that's fully paid for and doesn't grow the national debt.

Manchin's position will likely frustrate progressives such as Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They're pressing for a huge spending package that includes aggressive measures to combat climate change, tax hikes on corporations and the wealthy, along with Medicare expansion.

"I think the key for progressives is as long as Dems are willing to act by reconciliation for the pieces we couldn't get, that's great," Kaine told reporters on Thursday, adding that a range of climate and immigration provisions could end up in a Democratic-only package.

View post:

Democratic senator says Mitch McConnell may 'pull the football out' from Democrats on infrastructure - Business Insider

Dallas Democratic state Rep. John Turner announced Monday he will not seek reelection in 2022 to the District 114 seat he first won in 2018, flipping a district that had been dominated by Republicans.

This decision is for one reason alone: my conclusion that another campaign and another full legislative session are not compatible with the time I need to devote at this stage in life to being a father and husband, Turner said in a statement on Twitter.

This announcement comes just weeks before the Texas Legislature is scheduled to convene a special session on July 8. Gov. Greg Abbott announced the session after Democrats walked out the House chamber on May 30 to kill a Republican-backed elections bill.

We were able to stop some bad bills from passing in this session. We were unified in our opposition to the restrictive voting bill that you have no doubt read about over the last few days, Turner wrote on Facebook after the end of the regular session on June 1. We will keep fighting against that bill in the special session ahead.

District 114 is a Republican-leaning district, held by former Republican Rep. Jason Villalba until he lost the 2018 primary election to Lisa Luby Ryan. The GOP is expected to target the seat in 2022.

The Texas Legislature will be handling the redistricting process in the coming months and filing begins in September for the 2022 primary election, said Will Busby, director of development and communications for the Dallas County Republican Party. We look forward to seeing who files to run for Texas House District 114 and the work ahead to take back that seat in 2022.

Turner authored and co-authored 48 bills this legislative session, many concerning public health and voting issues. He pushed through a bill that will give law enforcement more resources to combat street racing, which is set to take effect Sept. 1.

In April, Turner voted against the hotly contested permitless carry bill, which lets Texans carry handguns in public without a license. Abbott signed the bill into law in June.

I was disappointed that the Texas House this week approved removing our longstanding requirement to have a license in order to carry a handgun in public, Turner tweeted after the House passed the legislation. I was one of the 58 votes against abolishing the requirement.

Turner is a centrist Democrat like his father, Jim Turner, who served in Texas politics for 24 years: He was mayor of Crockett, a state representative, a state senator and a congressman. His fathers career sparked Turners interest in politics.

Turner is also a practicing lawyer his regular job, as he calls it in addition to his Texas House duties. Turner cited the difficulties involved in this balancing act as one of the reasons hes not going to run again.

Republican Luisa del Rosal, who lost to Turner in the 2020 general election by a 53.6-46.4% margin, said in a tweet that shes weighing her options and will make an announcement soon.

Link:

Dallas state Rep. John Turner announces he wont seek reelection in 2022 - The Dallas Morning News

Jim Hartman Courtesy Photo

Judge Amy Barrett will overturn the Affordable Care Act. So declared Vice President Kamala Harris last fall.More from Harris then:President Trump made it clear that he had a litmus test for Supreme Court justices destroy the Affordable Care Acts protection for people with preexisting conditions and overturn our right to make our own health care decisions.... Republicans are desperate to get Judge Barrett confirmed and millions of Americans will suffer for their power play.Joe Bidens official statement on the Supreme Court nomination of Barrett last year mentioned her name once . It mentioned Roe vs. Wade once. It had eight sentences alluding to the pending case on the Affordable Care Act claiming Americans would lose their health insurance.There were other similar false demagogic messages, including from Sen. Chuck Schumer that Barrett clearly said shed strike down the Affordable Care Act.Nancy Pelosi charged that Barretts nomination threatens destruction of life-saving protections for 135 million Americans with pre-existing conditions together with every other benefit and protection of the ACA.Progressive zealot , Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, opined: Confirming Amy Coney Barrett will be the end of the Affordable Care Act.All wrong totally wrong. Will all the Democratic Party luminaries who claimed Barretts confirmation would mean the end of ObamaCare now apologize?Democrats actually knew last year that ObamaCare was in no real threat of being overturned.On June 17, Barrett very predictably joined the U. S. Supreme Courts 7-2 majority upholding the law.During Barretts confirmation hearings, Democrats absurdly claimed that placing her on the court was to assure that the ACA would be invalidated. But Barretts record, in addition to her answers to Senate Judiciary Committee questions, made it a near certainty that she would not vote to toss out the statute.Two important lessons should be learned never underestimate Democratic Party politicians cynicism, and, that conservative justices dont decide cases based on their policy preferences.Texas and 17 other states with Republican attorneys general, along with two individual plaintiffs, in California vs. Texas, challenged the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, after Congress zeroed out the penalty for not carrying health insurance in the 2017 tax reform.Plaintiffs dubious argument was that the entire ACA became unconstitutional when Congress zeroed out the individual mandate the mandate having been the basis on which the court in 2012 had earlier upheld the statute. Most judicial experts expected plaintiffs to lose.As a matter of law, the plaintiffs contention that the mandate was not severable from the rest of the ACA, therefore invalidating the entire voluminous statute, was untenable. In addition, plaintiffs did not have standing to raise their claims.In the end , six (Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Barrett) joined Justice Breyers opinion in declining even to reach the merits and held instead that plaintiffs lacked standing.Under court precedents, plaintiffs must suffer an injury in fact, The courts seven vote majority found that neither the individuals nor the states could show they would be harmed by the zeroed-out penalty. Justices Alito and Gorsuch dissented.The decision underscored that the court, even with recent additions of more conservative justices, is still able to find broad coalitions supporting middle-ground outcomes in controversial cases.Progressives treat the Supreme Court as just another policy-making body and court justices as politicians. They claimed Barretts confirmation would result is a series of far-right legal victories. But the conservative justices are demonstrating a diversity of legal views that are neither uniform nor radical.Health-care policy needs to be addressed, but that remains a task for Congress. The Roberts Court, with a now stronger conservative majority, intends to defer to Congress.It should never be the Supreme Courts responsibility to re-write health care law.Jim Hartman is an attorney residing in Genoa. Email lawdocman1@aol.com.

More:

Jim Hartman: Democrats' 'Obamascare' proven wrong | Serving Carson City for over 150 years - Nevada Appeal

Democratic leaders are trying to assure nervous progressives that their priorities for climate change, paid family leave and other human infrastructure can still be delivered even with President BidenJoe BidenSchumer vows to advance two-pronged infrastructure plan next month Biden appoints veteran housing, banking regulator as acting FHFA chief Iran claims U.S. to lift all oil sanctions but State Department says 'nothing is agreed' MORE embracing a much more narrowly focused Senate infrastructure deal.

Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiSchumer vows to advance two-pronged infrastructure plan next month Senators say White House aides agreed to infrastructure 'framework' Tim Cook called Pelosi to say tech antitrust bills were rushed MORE (D-Calif.) made clear Thursday that the House wont vote on any bipartisan infrastructure deal until the Senate also passes a larger package with Democratic priorities through the budget reconciliation process that can evade a GOP filibuster.

It was a move by Pelosi intended to calm the unrest among liberals, and it sent a strong signal to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue as well.

Let me be really clear on this: we will not take up a bill in the House until the Senate passes the bipartisan bill and a reconciliation bill. If there is no bipartisan bill, then we'll just go when the Senate passes a reconciliation bill, Pelosi said at a press conference in the Capitol.

I'm very optimistic that it will happen. And I don't want to say allay the fears I don't think they're fears, they're just advocating. And God bless them for doing that. But we're not going down the path unless we all go down the path together, she said.

A few hours after those comments, Biden said he would not sign the bipartisan proposal into law unless key portions of his agenda are addressed in a separate reconciliation package.

I'm not just signing the bipartisan bill and forgetting about the rest of what I proposed, Biden said at the White House.

The declarations from Pelosi and Biden increase the pressure on key centrists like Sens. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinSchumer vows to advance two-pronged infrastructure plan next month Senators say White House aides agreed to infrastructure 'framework' Briahna Joy Gray: Biden is keeping the filibuster to have 'a Joe Manchin presidency' MORE (W.Va.) and Kyrsten SinemaKyrsten SinemaSenators say White House aides agreed to infrastructure 'framework' Briahna Joy Gray: Biden is keeping the filibuster to have 'a Joe Manchin presidency' Sanders says he's 'tired of talking' about Manchin, Sinema MORE (Ariz.), who have been cagey about backing a Democrat-only package.

Manchin acknowledged Thursday for the first time that a reconciliation package is inevitable. He didnt endorse a specific size or scope of a Democrat-only bill, but signaled that the details needed to be debated.

Reconciliation is inevitable because basically Republicans I understand on the tax they don't want to undo anything on the 2017 [bill]. For those who didn't vote for 2017, there should be some adjustments. I'm open to that, Manchin told reporters.

Maintaining Democratic unity is critical in a 50-50 Senate and a historically small House majority, where Pelosi faces the delicate task of making sure no more than four members of her caucus defect on President Bidens top legislative priority.

At the same time, Pelosi must work in tandem with Senate Majority LeaderCharles SchumerChuck SchumerDemocrats urge Biden to extend moratorium on student loan payments White House draws ire of progressives amid voting rights defeat Murkowski to vote 'no' on voting rights bill MORE (D-N.Y.) to satisfy centristssuch as Manchin and Sinema who are reluctant to scrap the filibuster and keen to reach a bipartisan compromise. Schumer stressed Thursday that infrastructure will proceed on the two tracks.

If the Senate is going to move forward with a bipartisan infrastructure bill, we must also move forward on a budget resolution as well, Schumer said on the Senate floor.

Rep. Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalEnergized Trump probes pose problems for Biden Democrats fear they are running out of time on Biden agenda Garland: Review of Trump-era politicization should fall to DOJ watchdog MORE (D-Wash.), the leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said a recent poll of the group's 95 members found overwhelming support for the House waiting to pass a bipartisan bill until a larger package with liberal priorities moves simultaneously.

[Pelosis] been very clear since we talked to her that she doesn't have the votes. And so then her statement today was fantastic, Jayapal said.

My focus is on, what is the package we are all going to agree on? And then I want to hear that we've got 50 Democratic senators I want to hear them, Manchin, Sinema, say that they are on board, Jayapal said.

I just feel like we can't waste a lot of time on this bipartisan [portion], she added.

The deal unveiled by the bipartisan group of nearly two dozen senators and the White House would amount to about $579 billion in new spending over five years. That would include $298 billion for transportation projects like roads and bridges, public transit and airports, as well as $65 billion for broadband expansion.

The financing options include redirecting unused unemployment insurance and COVID-19 relief funds and incentivizing private sector investment through public-private partnerships.

Pelosi may have some wiggle room on the bipartisan half of the infrastructure plan if any centrist Republicans get on board.

Rep. Brian FitzpatrickBrian K. FitzpatrickBiden's corporate tax hike is bad for growth try a carbon tax instead Centrists gain foothold in infrastructure talks; cyber attacks at center of Biden-Putin meeting Overnight Health Care: Takeaways on the Supreme Court's Obamacare decision | COVID-19 cost 5.5 million years of American life | Biden administration investing billions in antiviral pills for COVID-19 MORE (Pa.), the Republican co-chair of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, said Thursday that he hadnt had a chance to review the details of the infrastructure deal but was open to supporting it.

Its either a good or bad deal on its own merits. It shouldnt be contingent on anything else, Fitzpatrick said.

Any GOP support for the bipartisan portion would also give space for some progressives dissatisfied with that half of the infrastructure plan to vote against it.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezHouse Democrats unveil spending bill to boost staff pay, maintain lawmaker pay freeze Five takeaways from New York's primaries Ocasio-Cortez says she ranked Wiley first, Stringer second in NYC mayoral vote MORE (D-N.Y.) criticized the bipartisan infrastructure deal for its lack of diversity among the negotiators who stood with Biden at the White House to unveil it on Thursday.

The diversity of this bipartisan coalition pretty perfectly conveys which communities get centered and which get left behind when leaders prioritize bipartisan dealmaking over inclusive lawmaking (which prioritizes delivering the most impact possible for the most people), Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter.

This is not to say that any/all bipartisan deals are bad but its to ask people to actually read whats inside them instead of assume bipartisan=good, Ocasio-Cortez continued. Isnt something better than nothing assumes that none of the individuals involved agreed to harmful policies. A huge assumption.

Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), another progressive lawmaker, said that he wanted to review both the bipartisan proposal and the reconciliation package before making a decision on either bill.

We gotta see both at the same time. I'm not going to say I support one without seeing the other, Bowman said.

But Bowman did have a condition: It has to be big.

Scott Wong and Jordain Carney contributed.

See the original post:

Democrats seek to calm nervous left | TheHill - The Hill

Democratic senators are starting to say the August recess, or at least part of it, should be in peril as the party falls further behind on its legislative agenda.

Bipartisan infrastructure talks have bogged down, and Senate Democrats have only just started work on a reconciliation package, which they hope to use to pass legislative priorities that dont have Republican support.

Negotiations on police reform, one of the few areas where senators feel more confident about a potential deal, have slowed down. And theres no progress to report on immigration reform or gun violence legislation. A GOP filibuster on Tuesday prevented the Democratic voting rights bill from even getting a debate on the Senate floor.

Senators are scheduled to leave town for a two-week recess starting Friday. After that, the Senate will be in session for four weeks, until Aug. 6, when it is scheduled to take another long recess until Sept. 13.

A growing number of progressives say Senate Majority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerDemocrats urge Biden to extend moratorium on student loan payments White House draws ire of progressives amid voting rights defeat Murkowski to vote 'no' on voting rights bill MORE (D-N.Y.) needs to think about revising the schedule, arguing the historic opportunity to pass a big, bold infrastructure bill is fast disappearing.

Im in favor of working right through the August recess, said Sen. Chris Van HollenChristopher (Chris) Van HollenWarren stalls confirmation of Biden pick in push for student loan reforms Democrats introduce resolution apologizing to LGBT community for government discrimination Zombie Tax punishes farmers to fill DC coffers MORE (D-Md.), a member of the Senate Budget Committee.

My view is we need to keep at it. Ive been a strong proponent of really working to get the caucus fully focused on working as fast as possible, he said of the slow-moving infrastructure negotiations.

Sen. Jeff MerkleyJeff MerkleySchumer vows next steps after 'awful' GOP election bill filibuster Progressives fear nightmare scenario over voting rights assault This week: Senate set for voting rights fight MORE (D-Ore.), who saw his voting rights bill, the For the People Act, get blocked by Republicans, said hes also willing to stay in town during August, when lawmakers traditionally escape the towns hot, humid weather for other locations.

Im very supportive of accelerating the momentum to counter the delay-and-obstruct tactics of Republicans, Merkley said. We need to use every day we can possibly use this year.

Killing the entire August recess is very unlikely, and senior members of the Senate Democratic leadership dont seem all that enthusiastic about canceling part of the recess either.

When asked about calls by colleagues to work through August, Senate Majority Whip Dick DurbinDick Durbin'Killibuster': Democratic angst grows as filibuster threatens agenda Biden administration to back bill ending crack, powder cocaine sentence disparity: report The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Democrats await Manchin decision on voting rights bill MORE (D-Ill.) quipped, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland?? Who else?

His implication: Its relatively easy for a senator from a nearby state to call for cutting a recess, which is intended to give lawmakers from far-away states more time to meet with constituents and hold town hall meetings.

Its because of this valuable face-to-face time with constituents that senators officially call the recess the state work period.

Asked last week about Sen. Ed MarkeyEd Markey'Fairplay' to launch campaign for children's online protection 'Killibuster': Democratic angst grows as filibuster threatens agenda Biden risks break with progressives on infrastructure MOREs (D-Mass.) call for cutting the recess, Durbin jokingly shot back: Will you tell Markey to get a life?

Still, Democratic leaders acknowledge pressure is building.

Merkley wants to keep forcing Republicans to consider the voters rights and election reform proposals, and he predicts additional battles.

He says election reforms need to pass before the end of the summer to give state election administrators time to implement legislation.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said hes frustrated with the glacial pace of the infrastructure negotiations and urged colleagues to consider working more in August to give themselves a shot to pass the reconciliation package before Labor Day.

Im running out of patience and the Senate is running out of time, so working for at least part of the August recess ought to be on the table, he said.

This infrastructure package is an historic opportunity that we need to do in August if we cant get it done in July, he said. It has to be done before September or at least have agreement on the basic outlines, even if some of the technical details need to be resolved.

Blumenthal said too much time has been spent waiting for various bipartisan groups of senators to reach a breakthrough on a scaled-down infrastructure package.

We cant go on with this group of eight, group of 20, no pay-fors right now we have this very amorphous and ambiguous idea that a bipartisan package would be a good thing, he added.

Merkley, Van Hollen and Markey, along with Sens. Alex PadillaAlex PadillaSchumer vows to only pass infrastructure package that is 'a strong, bold climate bill' Democratic divisions threaten Biden's voting push Senate Latino Democrats warn about low Hispanic vaccination rates MORE (D-Calif.), Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenSchumer vows to advance two-pronged infrastructure plan next month Overnight Health Care: CDC panel meets on vaccines and heart inflammation | Health officials emphasize vaccine is safe | Judge rules Missouri doesn't have to implement Medicaid expansion Democrats urge Biden to extend moratorium on student loan payments MORE (D-Mass.), Kirsten GillibrandKirsten GillibrandOvernight Defense: Joint Chiefs chairman clashes with GOP on critical race theory | House bill introduced to overhaul military justice system as sexual assault reform builds momentum House lawmakers introduce bill to overhaul military justice system Pentagon chief backs change to military sexual assault prosecution MORE (D-N.Y.) and Bernie SandersBernie SandersSenators say White House aides agreed to infrastructure 'framework' Briahna Joy Gray: Biden is keeping the filibuster to have 'a Joe Manchin presidency' On The Money: Biden to fire FHFA director after Supreme Court removes restriction | Yellen pleads with Congress to raise debt ceiling MORE (I-Vt.) have pressed Schumer and Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiSchumer vows to advance two-pronged infrastructure plan next month Senators say White House aides agreed to infrastructure 'framework' Tim Cook called Pelosi to say tech antitrust bills were rushed MORE (D-Calif.) to get a big, bold infrastructure investment package to Bidens desk before the end of summer.

In May, the senators wrote a letter to their leadership urging them to work with committee chairs to develop a rapid legislative timeline to enact an ambitious and comprehensive proposal before the August recess.

They argued that getting major infrastructure legislation passed by the end of July or early August would allow them to use the legislative recess to engage with our constituents in our districts to celebrate, highlight and guide community members through the concrete measures Congress has enacted.

Durbin on Wednesday acknowledged that unfinished business is piling up.

I dont know if well have to stay. I hope we dont, but weve got to get our work done, he said. Theres a lot to do and the Senate is a slow-moving vehicle, on a good day.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairwoman Patty MurrayPatricia (Patty) Lynn MurrayDemocrats block GOP bill to lift mask mandate on public transportation Public option fades with little outcry from progressives Senate GOP blocks bill to combat gender pay gap MORE (D-Wash.), who is working on the reconciliation package, said Democrats have a full plate.

Asked about calls from colleagues to cancel or cut short the recess, Murray said, I havent thought about it.

I think everybody is really pushing to get reconciliation done, and thats our goal, she said. Well get done what we can get done.

Jordain Carney contributed.

Excerpt from:

Democrats hear calls to nix recess | TheHill - The Hill

Yet what happened this spring in Oregon is just one example, though perhaps the most extreme one, of a larger trend vexing Democratic strategists and lawmakers focused on maximizing the partys gains in redistricting. In key states over the past decade, Democrats have gained control of state legislatures and governorships that have long been in charge of drawing new maps only to cede that authority, often to independent commissions tasked with drawing political boundaries free of partisan interference.

Supporters of these initiatives say it's good governance to bar politicians from drawing districts for themselves and their party. But exasperated Democrats counter that it has left them hamstrung in the battle to hold the House, by diluting or negating their ability to gerrymander in the way Republicans plan to do in many red states. And with the House so closely divided, Democrats will need every last advantage to cling to their majority in 2022.

We Democrats are cursed with this blindness about good government, said Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia, a Democratic state that will nonetheless see its congressional map drawn by a newly created independent commission.

In rabid partisan states that are controlled by Republicans, they're carving up left and right. And we're kind of unilaterally disarming, Connelly conceded, before adding: But having said that, I still come down on the side of reforming this process because it's got to start somewhere.

Only a handful of states had redistricting commissions a decade ago, but the number has grown since then thanks in large part to a campaign from national Democrats, including former Attorney General Eric Holder, to increase voter awareness of gerrymandering casting it mostly as a Republican abomination, despite the practice's bipartisan history.

Outside of Oregon, Democrats are also nervous about Virginia and Colorado, which will both have new independent commissions after state legislators and the voters passed amendments creating them. Together, those three states account for 25 seats in the House.

The saga of Virginia's redistricting commission, however, has proved to be the most controversial.

National Democrats poured upwards of $10 million into the state in the 2019 elections and painted the capture of the state legislature as crucial to the party's redistricting fate. They took both chambers, securing total control in Richmond under Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam.

Democratic legislative candidates campaigned on a pledge to back an existing amendment that would create a redistricting commission. But when it came time to vote on it, they balked.

The proposed 16-person commission includes eight state lawmakers, four from each party. At least two Republican legislators must approve a map giving the GOP de facto veto power and if the commission deadlocks, the Republican-leaning state Supreme Court steps in.

Most Democrats in the House of Delegates voted against placing the amendment on the ballot. But nine defected and voted with Republicans to pass it, and voters overwhelmingly approved it in November.

"We just don't seem to have the guts to just go out and go play politics the way Republicans do," said Ben Tribbett, a Virginia-based Democratic operative.

The stakes are high: Democrats currently represent seven of Virginia's 11 congressional districts. But two of those are hard-won battleground seats held by Reps. Abigail Spanberger and Elaine Luria that they had hoped to shore up under a new map. Also on the wish list: making the districts of GOP Reps. Rob Wittman and Bob Good more competitive.

"I didn't endorse it. I thought it was ill-conceived," said Democratic Rep. Donald McEachin, who represents the Richmond area. "By and large, I do think that unless you're going to have everybody do redistricting commissions, our party is at a disadvantage."

That's what House Democrats proposed in their election reform bill, H.R. 1 (117). Yet that legislation, which would mandate independent redistricting commissions, is unlikely to make it through the Senate.

In the meanwhile, few Democrats dispute that they have been much quicker to move toward commissions or power-sharing agreements in states where they have trifecta control over redistricting.

Holders group, the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, has framed the shift as a crucial part of the battle for the integrity of American democracy that transcends any immediate political gain because Republicans are using gerrymandering as a form of voter suppression.

We want fairness, and we put our money where our mouth is, said Kelly Ward Burton, the groups president. We have pushed for fairness in the states where we have control or influence. We're even doing it at the national level."

The Republicans are not," she added, "because they intend to manipulate the maps to hold on to power.

Redistricting is a fraught process for Democrats, who remain scarred from their 2010 experience. State legislative and gubernatorial losses left them boxed out of the mapmaking in nearly every major state, and Democratic strongholds like California and Washington already had commissions in place. Republicans were pressing their advantage in states like Texas, while Democrats couldn't counter.

They vowed to secure more control before the 2020 redistricting and have. But that has made recent developments all the more frustrating.

Some Oregon Democrats insist the short-term gain, an end to the legislative logjam, was not worth the decadelong price of a compromise map. And in an interview last month, DeFazio said state House Speaker Tina Kotek made the decision without consulting members in other parts of the state.

"She is totally Portland-centric, and nothing outside of Multnomah County exists so far as she's concerned," DeFazio said, adding: "It's just inexplicable and arrogant."

In a statement, Kotek's office countered that she had "ensured an open, transparent and thorough legislative process" for redistricting, while also minding state business. Speaker Kotek is focused on making sure our government is actually working to help people in need after a year of crises," Danny Moran, the speaker's spokesperson, said.

The state, which has four Democrats and one Republican currently in Congress, is gaining a seat. Schrader and DeFazio are the only Democrats who don't represent a significant part of Portland, the state's largest city, and their districts have been competitive at times.

In Colorado, a Democratic-led state House joined with a Republican-led state Senate in 2018 to place a redistricting commission proposal on the ballot.

Privately, some Democrats in the state weren't sold on the idea. But others were eager to preempt an attempt by Colorado Republicans to gather signatures for their own redistricting amendment proposing a commission with parameters more favorable to the GOP.

Ultimately, the amendment passed with few detractors the legislature voted to place it on the ballot, and the voters also gave it a stamp of approval. Now Colorado's eight districts will be drawn by a commission.

"I don't see it that way," said Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) when asked if it was a missed opportunity for the party. "It's good government, and I think that at the end of the day that's what nonpartisan redistricting is all about."

There are 17 states where Democrats have control of the legislature and the governors mansion or a legislative supermajority that can override a GOP governors veto. Yet all but a half dozen of those have some form of a commission or power share, and another, Delaware, has only one congressional district.

To be sure, Democrats plan to be aggressive in states where there are few restraints. One proposed Illinois map could give Democrats control of 14 of the state's 17 seats. In Maryland, there's some Democratic appetite to claim all eight of its districts taking the current 7-1 Democratic map, one of the nations most notable gerrymanders, and pushing things a step further.

In New Mexico and New York, Democrats have given a commission a chance at drawing new maps but allowed their legislatures to retain the final say. They represent a roadblock for Democrats, but not an insurmountable one; legislators can reject those maps and pass their own.

Still, Republicans have control in places like Texas, Georgia, Florida and North Carolina. And they need only five seats to recapture the House, something they could possibly attain through favorable maps in those states alone.

The NDRC, which will serve as the party's redistricting legal clearinghouse, said Democrats remain clear-eyed about the challenges that lie ahead.

"We will fight tooth and nail in the states with every tool at our disposal to prevent them from locking in gerrymandered maps," Ward Burton said of their plans if H.R.1 doesn't pass. "We will sue them. We fully anticipate being in court. And that will be the battlefront on which we fight for fair maps. We're ready for that."

Continued here:

How Democrats are unilaterally disarming in the redistricting wars - POLITICO

But Democrats see a changed landscape. The ProPublica report added fodder. But even before the pandemic recession, corporate tax receipts had plunged 40 percent after the Trump tax cuts. Though the 2017 tax law ostensibly lowered the corporate income tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent, the effective business rate has fallen to 8 percent, said Representative Lloyd Doggett of Texas, a senior Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee.

Theres been a big change in voter attitudes on taxes, Mr. Wyden said. In the last 10 years, Republicans always want to talk about taxes, nail those Democrats on taxes, tax-and-spend and all the rest. Now, the American people are sympathetic with our point, which is that everybody ought to pay their fair share.

Democrats are divided about how far to go. Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, pressed Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen last week on Ms. Warrens proposed wealth tax, which would impose a 2 percent surtax on the value of assets owned by people worth more than $50 million and raise at least $3 trillion.

This is about choices, she told a reluctant Ms. Yellen. We can fund universal child care, or we can hand Jeff Bezos enough tax savings to build a superyacht.

Other Democrats, even liberals, are not so sure.

The whole term of a wealth tax scares an awful lot of people who are hoping to achieve some wealth, Mr. Doggett said. We dont want to discourage economic success. We just want to level the playing field.

Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, is stuck in the middle. As a pro-business Democrat, he was tapped by Mr. Wyden to hash out a corporate tax package with Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, a pro-labor Democrat. But he is also a member of the group negotiating the bipartisan infrastructure deal.

He said he was confident there would be unanimous support among Democrats to include the international tax framework in a reconciliation bill that followed a narrower infrastructure compromise, because its just so darned complicated.

View post:

Infrastructure Bill Talks Collide With Democrats Goal to Tax the Rich - The New York Times