Category Archives: Democrat

Republican New York City Councilman Joe Borelli said Monday the Democrats defund the police "experiment" has failed and has resulted in nationwide rise in crime.

During an appearance on "America Reports" Borelli said cities with "entrenched progressive governments" who have defunded the police have made their cities more dangerous. "Not oneof these cities run byprogressives can say thattheir city is safer than itwas two years ago."

"You don't have to goin a time machine to think back far when a place likeNew York City was the model ofsafe and large global cities.It was literally two years ago. You can only look at thepolicy changes that progressiveDemocrats in Albany aremaking.We talk about hate crime.Democrats enacted bail reform.They had a choice of what theycould put on the bail reformlist or keep it with bail andthey chose not to havehate crimes."

27 PEOPLE SHOT IN NEW YORK CITY OVER WEEKEND

"There's no more taking politicsout of it.When you have a progressive Democratic government governingyour city it's likely going to beless safe.This is just the reality," Borelli added.

Host John Roberts noted St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones seems to be doubling down on the idea of defunding the police by proposing the city close a jail and divert police funds to social programs.

Borelli responded by criticizing New York Mayor Bill de Blasio for touting the lowest Rikers Island population since World War II.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"If that corresponded to the lowestcrime rate since World War II,we would have a parade downBroadway, but that's not thecase."

"If we are going to continue downthis road, we already don't haveenough police officers to floodthe streets where all of these other shootingshappen. The majority of the shootingsand the ones that account forthe bulk of the volumeincreases, those are happeningon lesser-known intersectionsaround the five boroughs and wedon't have enough cops to floodthose streets.We need to, but we won'tbecause of progressive Democrats."

Read more here:

NYC Councilman Joe Borelli says progressive Democrat policies are to blame for the rise in New York homicides - Fox News

President Biden will be his own secretary of state, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who criticized Biden's sanctions waiver, said bluntly. I cant define what is the Biden view, but he has a global view. And I think hes going to call it as he sees it from his experiential factor and his [own] view.

That doesnt mean Menendez and other Democrats have to stay quiet they havent been shy about speaking up against their own party's president during a tough week. But unlike Donald Trump, whose breed of global bombast Democrats found far more objectionable but also more malleable, they've acknowledged that their complaints arent likely to make a difference with Biden. His years wielding the Senate gavel that Menendez now holds, as well as his vice presidency under Barack Obama, have built Biden a foreign policy identity thats more written in stone and resistant to shifting political winds.

Democratic lawmakers pressuring Biden over his handling of the conflict in Gaza have more than his legacy to think about, after all; their party is undergoing a real-time reckoning over its historically conditions-free approach to the U.S.-Israel relationship. Lawmakers have pushed Biden to adopt a more aggressive posture toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over his initial resistance to the cease-fire that Netanyahu's government announced late Thursday. A contingent of progressives advancing the Palestinian cause is still pushing to block a new weapons sale to Israel.

Its been too little too late. Many of the things that he did were not helpful, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said of Bidens response to this month's 11 days of Middle East conflict. In fact, I think they may have emboldened Netanyahu to continue with even more aggressive attacks.

Underpinning Democrats' frustration with Biden is their insistence that he do more to break with the Trump administration's Israel policies, which revolved around the then-presidents unwavering support for Netanyahu and his government. Jayapal said Biden hasnt done enough to diverge from Trump's approach, describing the similarity as detrimental.

Bidens confidants brush off such intraparty criticism, insisting that the president who was a senator for 36 years and chaired the Foreign Relations Committee before his two terms as vice president should be trusted to make consequential global decisions.

When he ran, some on the left derided him as being too seasoned, too centrist, too moderate, said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), Bidens closest ally and friend on the Hill.

In foreign policy in particular, he brought more practical, hands-on experience to the job than any other president in my lifetime, Coons added of Biden. I strongly doubt that just a few sharply worded cable TV interviews or resolutions by junior members of the House are going to pressure the president of the United States.

But liberals insist that they successfully nudged Biden to take a harder line with Netanyahu, pointing to the president's more vocal calls for a cease-fire as the week went on. I think hes listening to the statements being made by progressives, said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who was intensely critical of Bidens early approach to the shooting war.

Senate Armed Services Chair Jack Reed (D-R.I.) agreed that the outspokenness from congressional Democrats helped the Biden administration as it sought to convince the Israelis to pursue a cessation of hostilities.

It helped push him, but it also helped give him a much more credible argument with the principals this is not just my position, this is a growing position in the United States, Reed, who supported cease-fire efforts, said in a brief interview.

House Armed Services Chair Adam Smith (D-Wash.) also said Biden has been responsive to pressure from Congress. Indeed, the president grew increasingly supportive of a cease-fire in the Middle East though he never publicly pushed for one amid lockstep Democratic unity on the matter ahead of the mutual agreement by Hamas and Israel's Security Cabinet.

The cease-fire is expected to take effect in the wee hours of Friday, pausing fighting that killed more than 220 people in Gaza and a dozen in Israel.

While Biden remained quiet publicly about the fighting, the White House released routine readouts of the presidents phone calls with Netanyahu, and Bidens spokesperson has described the administrations efforts as quiet and intensive. Bidens allies have also thrown shade at Trump, who often practiced diplomacy-by-tweet, and even lawmakers who pushed the president early on for a cease-fire call challenged the idea that his behind-the-scenes work is less effective.

Weve become so used to foreign policy being conducted by Twitter that we sometimes mistake quiet, impactful diplomacy for inaction, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in a brief interview. Just because President Biden isnt conducting his relations with heads of state on Twitter doesnt mean he isnt doing really important diplomatic work.

An impassioned Coons insisted that "the most effective way to engage meaningfully with Israel is through private, deliberate, purposeful, instructive conversations. That is what [Biden] has been doing; that is what he is doing."

Top Democrats insist that despite the public criticism aimed at Biden, the party is united on the Israel-Palestine issue. They contend that it's Republicans who have abandoned a realistic two-state solution to the conflict as they hug Netanyahu, embracing counterproductive policies by the Israeli government that were also championed by Trump.

"We're talking about tactics, not policy. Broadly, were not having a policy disagreement," Murphy said of his party. "We support, as a party, a Palestinian state. We always have. And were talking about the mechanisms by which we effectuate that policy. Were always going to have tactical disagreements.

Yet it's not just the Gaza conflict that has Democrats at odds over tactics. The president again angered Democratic lawmakers when his administration decided not to impose mandatory sanctions on the company in charge of the controversial Russia-to-Germany pipeline known as Nord Stream 2. Despite U.S. efforts to stop the pipeline, its construction is entering the home stretch and its set to be a massive boon to Putin's government.

The German government supports the pipelines completion, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that while the U.S. opposes it, Wednesdays decision was consistent with the presidents pledge to rebuild relationships with our allies and partners in Europe.

Menendez warned that the Biden administration's sanctions waiver has created uncertainty in many corners of Europe. He and other Democrats are particularly concerned about the impacts on Ukraine, which is facing constant aggression from Moscow.

Despite the public disagreements, Bidens party is still behind his overarching foreign-policy agenda, such as realigning the U.S. with international organizations and the Paris climate accord. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who spoke out against the pipeline sanctions waiver, in addition to Bidens planned withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, described the majority of fellow Democrats as still in Biden's camp on global affairs.

Even before the outbreak of violence in the Middle East and the sanctions waiver, however, Biden was facing an increasingly confrontational posture from his congressional allies over his foreign-policy decisions.

Just six weeks into his presidency, Biden ordered airstrikes on Iran-backed militant groups in Syria without first seeking congressional approval. He later declined to punish Saudi Arabias crown prince over his role in the killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Biden's Syria strikes decision led to a renewed push to rein in presidential war powers, with Democrats taking the lead and getting some GOP support. As early as next week, the Foreign Relations panel is expected to pass a measure to repeal outdated war authorizations initially adopted in 1991 and 2002.

On that issue, Biden has promised to work with Congress to rein in his own powers by revamping the 2001 bill that authorized military operations against the terrorists who attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11.

Here is the original post:

Democrats struggle to influence Bidens foreign policy in the Mideast and beyond - POLITICO

Dogs have fared well this Texas legislative session.

While intensely partisan battles over voting rights, abortion and guns have demanded their attention for the last four months, lawmakers have found overwhelming unity when it comes to taking care of mans best friend.

A bill that bans the use of heavy chains to tether dogs, another requiring animal control and shelters to scan lost dogs for microchips and yet another to give tax breaks to pet rescue facilities have passed the House and Senate and are heading to Gov. Greg Abbott, a dog owner, for final approval.

It has been a good session, said Stacy Kerby, director of government relations at the Texas Humane Legislation Network, a nonprofit that promotes anti-cruelty legislation.

The biggest victory for those groups has been the tethering legislation, which has been bottled up for nearly a decade. State Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr., a Cameron County Democrat, has been fighting for years not only to ban the heavy chains but also to give law enforcement more power to save dogs that are in danger.

TEXAS TAKE: Get political headlines from across the state sent directly to your inbox

His Senate Bill 474 would get rid of a notice requirement in state law requiring law enforcement to give a dog owner 24 hours to correct a situation before citing the owner or taking custody of the dog. During hearings, animal control experts testified that the 24-hour rule proved fatal for many dogs during the winter storm and extends the suffering of animals unnecessarily when an officer can see that unsafe conditions are causing harm.

Twenty-four hours can be the difference between life or death, said Jamey Cantrell, president of the Texas Animal Control Association.

The bill spells out that dog owners can have dogs outside but cannot restrain them with chains, short lines or anything that causes pain or injury to the dog.

A first offense is a class C misdemeanor, which can mean a penalty of up to $500. For people previously cited, the penalty can jump to a class B misdemeanor, meaning a fine of up to $2,000 and 180 days in jail.

Lucio has added changes to the bill to exempt dogs used for ranching and other agricultural purposes and for dogs kept in the backs of pickups key provisions that played a big role in keeping the bill from passing in previous legislative sessions.

Cities such as San Antonio already have ordinances that ban chains. Dog advocacy groups say heavy tow chains can cause great damage to a dogs neck, tangle easily and severely restrict a dogs movement.

Rural sheriffs have backed the bill, saying it allows them to now take action, rather than having to let dogs suffer up to 24 more hours before anything changes.

In the county world, we dont have the ability to have leash laws and other ordinances that they do in the cities, said Chambers County Sheriff Brian C. Hawthorne. So this is a tool for a sheriff or a county animal control service to have the ability to deal with these issues.

Its all about protecting the lives of animals, said Lucio, who has nine cats and five dogs.

This bill will make dogs safer, he said.

The bill passed the Senate 28-3 in April and cleared the House 83-32 this month.

Another bill is aimed at speeding up the process of getting lost dogs and cats back to their owners.

House Bill 604 by Rep. Candy Noble, a Collin County Republican, requires lost animals to be scanned for a microchip as soon as possible after being taken into custody by a shelter or law enforcement agency.

Noble said pet owners spend money on microchipping in hopes it will make the recovery of their animals easier if they get lost.

While all the best-practice shelters and rescues do scan animals on intake, some are not doing so, she said.

Noble said scanners can cost between $40 and $400, but she said the cost of having animals left in a shelter can be between $300 and $425, making her bill not just good for the animals but also a cost savings for shelters and animal control officials.

Kerby said studies show that once animals get into a shelter, the likelihood of being reunited with their owners drops.

Nobles bill passed the House 147-2 in mid-April and cleared the Senate 30-0 last week.

A third bill is aimed at extending tax breaks that many animal shelters already get. State Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, said that currently the tax code eliminates sales taxes for animals sold by nonprofit shelters. But that tax break doesnt apply to rescue groups that dont have shelters but use networks of foster homes until a dog or cat is adopted.

Passing SB 197 supports our local rescue groups and helps connect more animals to people who will love and care for them, Nelson said.

Nelsons bill passed 31-0 in early April and cleared the House 143-0 last week.

jeremy.wallace@chron.com

More:

Where do Texas Democrats and Republicans really come together? Dog bills. - Houston Chronicle

As the Biden administrations infrastructure negotiations with Senate Republicans picked up with a $1.7 trillion counteroffer on Friday, some congressional Democrats are getting antsy.

We move as quickly as we can on going big, we move as quickly as we can on negotiations, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) told Vox on Wednesday. At some point, if they wont go where we believe the country needs to go and where the country seems to want to go, then we take off.

President Biden issued his opening bid last month the $2.25 trillion American Jobs Plan and the GOP responded with a $568 billion infrastructure counteroffer a few weeks ago. (Separately, the White House also introduced a $1.8 trillion American Families Plan, focusing on child care and education.)

The new $1.7 trillion White House counteroffer settles for the $65 billion Republicans floated for broadband funding, and pares back the amount of funding for roads and bridges from Bidens initial proposal of $159 billion to $120 billion in new investment. It also cuts research and development from a proposed package, vowing to put it in other congressional bills going forward. But the presidents counter keeps funding for clean energy, removing lead pipes from Americas drinking water systems, and boosting long-term care workers.

We recognize that still leaves us far apart, a White House memo to Republicans obtained by Vox reads. However, in service of trying to advance these negotiations, the President has asked us to respond with changes to his American Jobs Plan, in hopes that these changes will spur further bipartisan cooperation and progress.

For their part, Republicans dont seem all that happy. A statement released by a spokesperson for Senate Republicans Friday said, based on todays meeting, the groups seem further apart after two meetings with White House staff than they were after one meeting with President Biden.

Democrats on the Hill say they support the White House actively talking to Republicans. But some are also anxious that negotiating with Republicans just wont meet the needs of the moment whether its on climate change or jobs.

I dont think its our job to pass something just so that we can say, Well, that piece over there is bipartisan, and wait for the pat on the back, moderate Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) told reporters recently. I think people want us to get big things done.

Democrats other option is budget reconciliation, a mechanism that would allow them to pass a massive budget bill with just 51 votes rather than the required 60 mostly likely on party lines. This is what Democrats did for Bidens $1.9 trillion Covid-19 relief package, and they have at least one more opportunity to do it again before the 2022 midterms.

The Biden administration is caught between two promises: working with Republicans on Capitol Hill, and vowing to pass an ambitious economic agenda that reroutes the American economy toward clean energy and passes billions to make child care and long-term care more affordable.

Some progressive climate groups are arguing that a bipartisan deal could significantly hurt the presidents climate agenda. They argue Biden needs to invest heavily in electric charging stations, and to pass a clean electricity standard to get to his goal of 100 percent clean electricity by 2035. Bidens counteroffer largely leaves his environmental provisions intact but would forgo a $180 billion investment into research and development money that could be key for the Energy Departments development of new technology to combat climate change.

If you spend money on roads without making major investments in either mileage standards or deployment of EVs or investing in putting in new standards to ensure clean electricity by 2030 or 2035, youll be going backward on climate, said Jamal Raad, co-founder of the climate group Evergreen Action and a former top staffer for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee.

Still, as much as some Democrats worry that negotiating with Republicans wastes valuable time, some of Bidens closest allies on Capitol Hill say it is simply part of a process that could make moderate Democrats accept reconciliation, if and when that happens.

When the president announced a big and bold proposal, the American Jobs Plan, several Democrats promptly said, I will not vote for this for reconciliation, a Democrat-only bill unless there is a serious and determined effort first for bipartisanship, Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) told Vox. It seems to me the issue isnt the White House not going bold; the issue is one of order and timing.

The main Republican negotiator is Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia. Capito is the ranking Republican member on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which has purview over five-year reauthorization bills for surface and water infrastructure.

Capito and other Republicans who are ranking members on key committees had a nearly two-hour meeting with Biden at the White House earlier this month. The senators have also had subsequent conversations with members of Bidens Cabinet and senior staff including White House counselor Steve Ricchetti, director of legislative affairs Louisa Terrell, National Economic Council Director Brian Deese, Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, and Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg.

While the main difference between Republicans and Democrats is over proposed corporate tax hikes to pay for the projects, there are other areas of disagreement. In staff-level negotiations between Senate Democrats and Republicans on the five-year surface transportation bill, Republicans have been pushing back on climate resilience provisions, a Democratic Senate staffer told Vox. Democrats see infrastructure as a key way to make progress on cutting down on fossil fuel emissions in the transportation sector investing in 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations across the nations roadways to encourage more people to switch to cleaner cars.

Im wary of anything that has Capitos fingerprints, said Raad, the co-founder of Evergreen Action. It would not just hurt our ability to hit our NDC [the US target to limit its carbon emissions], it would take us backward.

Sen. Brown says he thinks the Biden administration should be trying to find common ground with Republicans at least to prove they tried. But Brown clearly believes that shouldnt entail significant concessions, especially on climate.

I assume theyll obstruct on climate, he told Vox. Well try to come to bipartisan agreement; I dont expect it [to happen]. We move forward in a big way.

Biden has said he wants to see significant progress on bipartisan talks by Memorial Day, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has outlined July 4 as when shed like to see an infrastructure bill get a vote in Congress, but that date could also be pushed if necessary.

Its possible that Democrats were padding extra time with those initial deadlines, expecting negotiations would move it back. Still, a razor-thin majority in the House and Senate makes the risk of taking additional time a high-stakes strategy. When they will introduce the first draft of a bill is still unclear.

I cant give you a specific answer because I dont know the answer, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told Vox, adding that appropriations work in the House will begin in earnest in July. Were going to have some time available to do the work of the Jobs Plan and the Families Plan in that time frame if, in fact, we can get agreement. And, if we cant get agreement, work with the administration on how well move forward.

House Budget Committee Chair John Yarmuth (D-KY), who will be overseeing the budget reconciliation process in the House if Democrats do indeed pursue budget reconciliation as an option to pass their infrastructure bill, told reporters, I think they want to give a reasonable chance for there to be a bipartisan bill. I think probably, sooner rather than later there will be a decision.

Even if Democrats do decide to do reconciliation rather than move a bipartisan bill through regular order, theres still a lot to be decided, including whether theyll move one massive bill containing both the American Jobs Plan and Bidens American Families Plan that deals with affordable child care and education, or split them into separate bills.

I think it would be difficult to do two. I know theres this idea about just doing physical infrastructure in one smaller bipartisan bill, but I dont like that idea, said Casey, who is shepherding the American Families Plan portion of Bidens package through the Senate and wants to see both planks of Bidens economic package passed through reconciliation.

The next week will be pivotal for Bidens big shot on the economy. But the clock is ticking.

Follow this link:

Bidens negotiations with Republicans on the American Jobs Plan are making some Democrats anxious - Vox.com

By Paul Mauney and Bill Moss

With no meaningful state law giving North Carolinians the right to see disciplinary records of those they employ in state and local government jobs, how will we ever know?

How will we know about the public school teacher who molested students in numerous mountain schools? About the superintendent of schools in the Piedmont who was fired and paid $250,000 to leave, without so much as a reason? Or about six city police officers who were suspended without pay, leaving the public with a vague explanation that then officers solicited prostitution?

We would know, if the Legislature enacts a law opening up personnel records. A bill filed in the North Carolina Senate this legislative session would result in the strongest improvement in decades in the peoples right to know in our state.

Theres plenty of room for positive strides in the category. North Carolina ranks near the bottom in the records citizens can access about the job performance their tax dollars fund. The Government Transparency Act of 2021, sponsored by Sen. Norman Sanderson and two other high-ranking Senate Republicans, would allow the public to see the reason for hirings, firings, demotions and promotions, opening a window into the management of public personnel and the decisions around their job performance.

Such an open records law sounds like unequivocally sound public policy, which is how its regarded in more than 35 states where that information is available. Opponents in their efforts to derail Senate Bill 355 have nonetheless mounted a campaign based on misinformation and alarmist scenarios.

The State Employees Association of North Carolina, the North Carolina Association of Educators, the Teamsters Union and the N.C. Justice Center have flooded senators inboxes with a letter declaring the bill unconstitutional and they persist in the false portrayal even after sponsors agreed to an amendment addressing their due process concerns.

The aggressive opposition raises several questions.

What is there to hide?

What is the public policy interest in keeping public employee performance records hidden from the public?

The NCAE asserts that SB 355 expands public access to personnel records of public employees to an inappropriate level far beyond what is expected in any other state. This too is baloney, given that 36 other states have codified access to employee records and in many cases require disclosure of personnel actions that go beyond the Government Transparency Act.

Fortunately, the Senate leadership has signaled that it wont be cowed by the drama from the teachers and state employee organizations.

The question that dogs us is where is the leadership of Gov. Roy Cooper and the Democratic senators? Cooper has always been a good-government advocate and a friend of the publics right to know. In fact, Senate Bill 355 is similar to a bill Cooper sponsored as a state senator in 1997 the Discipline Disclosure Act.

Everyone knows that the SEANC and the NCAE wield power in the Democratic Party but that is no reason for Democrats to choose secrecy over their constituents best interest.

Cooper should call out Democratic leaders and the partys rank and file for going AWOL on a significant public policy improvement for North Carolina, in support of principles of openness that ought to be more bipartisan than almost anything the Legislature will take up this year.

Cooper and the Democratic Party are welcome to support school teachers, state employees, law officers and other public sector employees when it comes to pay, benefits and other priorities. They ought to part ways with the SEANC and NCAE when public employees Raleigh lobbyists urge them to torpedo a bill that would immensely improve openness and transparency to the benefit of all North Carolinians.

Paul Mauney, president, APG Media of TN/NC/VA, is president of the North Carolina Press Association. Bill Moss, editor and publisher of the Hendersonville Lightning, is chairman of the NCPA Legislative Committee.

Read more:

GUEST VIEW: Why are Democrats AWOL on public's right to know? - The Stanly News & Press | The Stanly News & Press - Stanly News & Press

A $1.9 billion emergency funding bill to boost security at the US Capitol in the wake of the January 6 insurrection barely passed the House on Thursday. The measure, which would also provide additional personal security for lawmakers facing an intensifying wave of threats and harassment in Washington and their home districts, received no Republican support, and exposed fissures within the Democratic Party over the issue of increasing funding for any police force.

The bill ultimately passed on Thursday, following last-minute negotiations led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with 213 votes for the bill and 212 against.

Every voting Republican voted no on the bill, claiming that it cost too much money and that there was no guarantee the funding would be properly spent enhancing security. Those votes followed recent statements from Republicans that downplayed or outright fabricated facts about the violence that transpired at the Capitol on January 6.

More strikingly, Democrats were not unified among themselves. Left-wing members of the House, including the members of the so-called Squad, broke from the party out of what could be described as a defund-the-police rationale.

Democratic Reps. Cori Bush (MO), Ilhan Omar (MN), and Ayanna Pressley (MA) voted against the legislation; Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Jamaal Bowman (NY), and Rashida Tlaib (MI), voted present, which means they officially took no position.

The defection is a sign of fissures within the party over how to think about police reform and the use of force, a policy domain that has been a source of intense national debate since the protests that swept the nation last year following George Floyds death at the hands of Minneapolis police.

It also appears to be a carefully aimed warning shot by the Squad, illustrating that, when theyre unified, they have the ability to torpedo Democratic legislation. The Democratic Party relies on a narrow majority in the House to pass any one of its bills.

Bush, Omar, and Pressley released a joint statement, saying a package that pours $1.9 billion into increased police surveillance and force without addressing the underlying threats of organized and violent white supremacy, radicalization, and disinformation that led to this attack will not prevent it from happening again.

Bowman told reporters he voted present because there are some things about the bill that I support, like making sure our custodial staff and our cleaners have the resources they need to respond and deal with this trauma, but there are other parts of it that I dont support, like adding more funding to police budgets.

While Democrats have been unified on most major legislation during the opening months of the Biden administration, that unity may not hold as more complicated and polarizing policy issues come up for debate, throwing some Democratic bills into jeopardy.

Meanwhile, Republicans unified opposition to a nominally pro-law enforcement bill may signal once again a challenge to President Joe Bidens vision of being able to unify Congress around shared values.

The violence and security breaches by pro-Trump rioters seeking to shut down the certification of the 2020 election results on January 6 have raised big questions about what security should look like at the US Capitol going forward.

Capitol Police were unprepared for and slow to react to thousands of demonstrators some of whom were armed who stormed the Capitol, destroyed property, chanted death threats, searched the halls for lawmakers, and shut down the certification of the election results. Some 140 officers were injured and several people died. Experts say things couldve gone far worse, had lawmakers not narrowly avoided the mob in a few close encounters.

The crisis in turn has precipitated massive scrutiny of the Capitol Police and created a morale problem in its ranks, which appears to have caused an uptick in resignations and retirements among rank-and-file officers.

In spite of this, Republican leaders in both the House and the Senate have downplayed the threat that Capitol Police faced on January 6. This has served to both exonerate supporters of former President Donald Trump for their role in the violence on that day, and also underpinned arguments for maintaining the security status quo at the Capitol.

At a hearing last week, one House Republican from Georgia said that some of the people who broke into the Capitol on January 6 were behaving as if on a normal tourist visit to Washington. Another likened the rioters to a mob of misfits. And appearing on a Fox News program on Wednesday, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson called the incursion a peaceful protest.

A majority of Republicans also opposed the formation of an independent commission tasked with investigating the events of the day. While 35 House Republicans broke ranks with their party on Wednesday to support the investigation, top Republicans, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, opposed such an inquiry.

This disregard for the perils that Congress members faced on January 6 comes as threats and harassment against lawmakers have been increasing. Members of Congress report that theyre increasingly being confronted in public, receiving threats to their families, and having private details of their lives posted online. Compared to last year, threats against federal lawmakers have more than doubled so far this year.

The nearly $2 billion bill passed Thursday is meant to address a wide variety of issues, including: back pay for overtime hours, hazard pay, and retention bonuses; better equipment and training; a new quick-reaction team that would essentially create a standing force of the D.C. National Guard, according to Politico; fortifying the Capitol complex with movable fencing, surveillance equipment, and reinforced windows and doors; and extra security for lawmakers who have been threatened and typically are not eligible for publicly funded security.

Without any Republican support, Democrats were able to pass the spending package, but just barely. Pelosi and other top Dems had to scramble to try to assuage the Squads concerns about the bill, which included, according to Politico, considerations about allocating more money to a Capitol Police force in which some officers indirectly contributed to the days violence through lax enforcement.

I am tired of the fact that any time where there is a failure in our system of policing, the first response is for us to give them more money, rather than investigate the failings and hold those responsible accountable, Omar, who voted against the bill, told the Intercept. Ill continue to fight for structural change that actually centers peoples safety and humanity. That applies to us here in the Capitol, as well as my constituents in Minneapolis.

The joint statement from Omar, Bush, and Pressley expressed a broader set of concerns with the bill. Heres a key passage:

Increasing law enforcement funds does not inherently protect or safeguard the Capitol Hill or surrounding D.C. community. In fact, this bill is being passed before we have any real investigation into the events of January 6th and the failures involved because Republicans have steadfastly obstructed the creation of a January 6th commission.

The bill also does far too little to address the unspeakable trauma of the countless officers, staff, and support workers who were on site that day dedicating fifty times more money to the creation of a quick reaction force than it does to counseling. We cannot support this increased funding while many of our communities continue to face police brutality while marching in the streets, and while questions about the disparate response between insurrectionists and those protesting in defense of Black lives go unanswered.

Ultimately, Pelosis Democratic caucus emerged with the bill they wanted because three members of the Squad decided to vote present rather than oppose it.

But the entire episode showed the progressive wing of House Democrats flexing its muscle as a voting bloc, and likely foreshadows future legislative battles to come, whether on issues tied to criminal justice or other major points of policy disagreement.

Pelosis 11th-hour negotiations to save the bill also suggest that, with a narrow majority in the House, Democratic Party leadership cannot afford to alienate its most progressive members on any must-pass legislation potentially offering those farther-left members more leverage on their own priorities.

And while Biden and Democratic House leadership seem to have been able to satisfy the Squad on Bidens coronavirus relief bill and the administrations opening gambit on a massive infrastructure bill, some rifts between the establishment and the Squad may have further-reaching consequences. For example, in light of Israels airstrikes on Gaza, some members of the Squad introduced an unprecedented resolution to block Bidens $735 million arms sale to Israel this week; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced a similar proposal in the Senate.

While these resolutions are unlikely to get traction, they can embolden others in the party to break from Biden as some briefly seemed to do on the weapons sale and serve as symbols of how the small left-wing bloc in Congress could become a thorn in the side of party leadership in the coming months and years.

See the rest here:

A bill to increase security at the US Capitol just barely passed the House - Vox.com

Americans have received three stimulus checks since the start of the pandemic, but a growing number of Democrats have pushed for recurring payments to ensure the economic recovery continues. Last week, seven more Democrats joined the cause.

Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, led by Rep. Jimmy Gomez of California, wrote a letter to President Joe Biden urging him to include recurring direct stimulus payments and unemployment benefits tied to economic conditions in his American Families Plan.

The letter cited a poll from April that found that six in 10 adults said the latest round of stimulus checks would last them less than three months. Many respondents said they'd spend the checks on necessities like food and rent, stressing the need for long-term payments.

"The pandemic has served as a stark reminder that families and workers need certainty in a crisis," the Democrats wrote. "They deserve to know they can put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. They should not be at the mercy of constantly shifting legislative timelines and ad hoc solutions."

They added that jobless aid and stimulus payments "work in tandem": While unemployment benefits replace lost income from work, stimulus checks are "crucial for supporting struggling families that fall out of its reach."

A recent report from the Economic Security Project found that sending two more rounds of stimulus checks could keep 12 million more Americans out of poverty. On April 23, Insider reported that Democrats and Americans increasingly think that stimulus checks should be recurring.

House Democrats have long wanted to go beyond the $1,200 checks included in the CARES Act. Last May, Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Kamala Harris of California released a plan to give Americans $2,000 monthly checks for the duration of the pandemic.

Harris told MSNBC in July: "Through the course of this pandemic and crisis, we need to give people $2,000 a month as recurrent payments people below a certain income level to help them and sustain them through these months of crisis so that at the end of it they can get back up on their feet instead of having fallen deep, deep, deep into the crevices of this crisis."

Late last year, 125 economists wrote an open letter calling for additional payments. And in March, 21 Democratic senators urged Biden in a letter to include recurring direct payments in his $4 trillion infrastructure plan.

Biden is negotiating with Republicans on the size of his infrastructure package and has not commented on including recurring payments in his plan.

But given that the White House on Friday offered to cut Biden's $2.25 trillion American Jobs Plan down to $1.7 trillion, the inclusion of recurring stimulus payments and extended unemployment benefits is unlikely.

Go here to read the rest:

The push for recurring stimulus checks continues as 7 Democrats urge Biden to include them in infrastructure - Business Insider

He said he welcomed the change. If it makes consultants nervous, Mr. Rubin added, its meant to.

People who say, I cant control it, I dont understand it, well, thats the whole point you cant control it, Mr. Rubin said. If youre good on the issues they care about, theyre going to be with you. If youre not, theyre not.

That became clear last week when the Markeyverse went on the offensive.

Their target, this time, was Mr. Markey himself, who on Tuesday had put out a carefully worded Twitter thread on the mounting violence in Israel, apportioning some blame on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides.

This was a disappointment for many of the young progressives, who had been hoping for a sharp rebuke of Israel, like the ones that came from Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren, or from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Though Mr. Markeys voting record on foreign policy was no secret he voted to authorize the occupation of Iraq in 2002, for example it had faded into the background in their embrace of his candidacy, which focused heavily on his record on climate. Now, the group chats and Slack channels that comprise the Markeyverse were flooded with emotion, disappointment and betrayal.

Its horrible to watch, and its disappointing, said Emerson Toomey, 21, one of the authors of Eds Reply Guys, a Twitter account that helped establish Mr. Markey as a progressive star.

Ms. Toomey, a senior at Northeastern University, was computing, with some bitterness, the hundreds of thousands of hours of unpaid labor she and her friends had provided to the senator. It made her question the compact she had assumed existed, that, in exchange for their support, he would accommodate their views on the issues that mattered.

Maybe he just said those things to us to get elected, she said.

They had shifted into full organizational mode, circulating a letter of protest that, Ms. Walsh hoped, could induce Senator Markey to revisit his positions on the conflict.

See the original post:

An Army of 16-Year-Olds Takes On the Democrats - The New York Times

Republicans have a new ally to help deliver their global warming message. He's an environmentalist who likes to apologize for the "climate scare."

Meet Michael Shellenberger.

He's a pro-nuclear, pro-fracking former Democratic gubernatorial candidate from California who says he has seen the truth about climate change. A former Time magazine "Hero of the Environment," he argues that nuclear energy and natural gas are the path to an improved future and that renewables will lead to more ecological devastation.

If a story about a redeemed activist who regrets his role in "climate alarmism" seems straight out of Fox News, it's because it is. The network has repeatedly booked Shellenberger to air his views.

Yet he differs from the energy lobbyists and climate denialists who have contributed to far-right Republican climate politics for years. He has never rejected the scientific underpinnings of climate change.

In that way, he echoes the emerging Republican position that acknowledges the presence of a warming world without committing to reducing fossil fuels.

"The fact that he is not just left of center, but far left of center, that he came from the same pedigree as many of our Democratic colleagues, is why [Democrats] hate him so much," said a Republican Hill staffer on the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.

Last year, Shellenberger wrote a book titled "Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All," which downplays the risks of climate change and points at environmentalists as a growing risk to society.

Republicans have eagerly embraced him as a recovered climate acolyte.

Shellenberger said in an interview with E&E News that his views should not be reduced to his most bombastic comments, which can at times be seen scrolling across a Fox News chyron.

"You may want to go and find something that I know that a lot of progressives are butt-hurt about, a lot of climate alarmists are butt-hurt about," he said. "That would be cherry-picking one particular thing in my nearly 20 years of writing on this topic and trying to suggest that it stands for the whole."

Shellenberger's rise among conservative media and lawmakers comes as some Republicans try to soften their image on climate. Last month, a group of Republicans introduced a package of bills that would increase tree planting and investments in carbon capture and would ramp up domestic production of critical minerals.

The legislative package recognizes the reality of human-caused global warming but does not restrain the use of fossil fuels, the dominant driver of rising temperatures. More legislative efforts are expected to be released as the party heads toward midterm elections next year that will, in part, feature suburban swing districts where climate change is a concern for voters.

That's where Shellenberger's message might make a difference. He has never denied the reality of climate science and has previously worked with Democrats on climate policy.

It makes him a measured messenger compared to the outright denial that flourished under President Trump.

Ted Cruz. Photo credit: Jabin Botsford - Pool/Getty Images

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) promoted Shellenberger's book. Jabin Botsford - Pool/Getty Images

Shellenberger has testified in congressional hearings six times since January 2020, often at the invitation of Republican committee members. (Shellenberger claimed he was invited by both parties because the official invitation he received was signed by the Democratic committee chair as well as the ranking Republican.)

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has cited Shellenberger's work as informing the party's climate policy. Last month, Shellenberger was invited to speak at a Republican retreat in Florida, where he told lawmakers that renewables would increase energy prices and lead to more blackouts.

The party is embracing Shellenberger with glowing testimonials from lawmakers, media figures and climate denial groups.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who has held congressional hearings to attack climate science, promoted Shellenberger's book on Twitter and said it was "worth reading." Climate misinformation groups, including the CO2 Coalition and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, also praised the book. Breitbart News trumpeted the reformation of a "climate alarmist," and the Daily Caller regularly touts Shellenberger's public claims with headlines such as "Here's How Renewable Energy Actually Hurts the Environment."

Outside of that, Shellenberger has credited climate denial groups such as the Heartland Institute, which has spent years pushing climate disinformation on the public, for telling the "truth."

"Thank you, guys, for sounding the alarm on these issues for longer than I have, and I'm sorry it took me so long to basically get into a position where I could tell the truth," Shellenberger said on a Heartland Institute podcast last year.

Shellenberger said he appears on conservative outlets because progressive media figures won't engage with his ideas for fear of upsetting their audience.

"The question you should be asking is: Why won't Rachel Maddow have me on her show; why won't Anderson Cooper have me on his show; why won't Stephen Colbert have me on their show?" he said. "Many other media have me on their show, and so I get excluded by progressive media."

Shellenberger disputed the notion that his message has special appeal to Republicans. He claimed that the Biden administration is doing more to boost nuclear energy because of his work. He said he has a track record of working with politicians from both parties and that he has spoken at Democratic retreats, though that occurred before he started apologizing for the climate movement.

But his arguments fit into the Republican orthodoxy on climate change with one difference. He's not a Republican.

"There's nothing he's saying or doing that's new to us; it's just a different voice than Heritage, and he comes at it a different way," the GOP staffer said. "He comes at it as a liberal from California."

Richard Muller. Photo credit: Eddie Moore/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom

Richard Muller, a Berkeley physics professor, recanted his climate skepticism after reviewing the science. Eddie Moore/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom

The idea of climate converts, whether they are following the science or distorting it, has long been an irresistible political narrative in Washington. Just as Republicans are embracing Shellenberger now, Democrats have touted scientists, politicians and climate skeptics who pushed past partisan blinders and publicly admitted they were wrong.

Richard Muller is one of the most pronounced converts. A physics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who had long been skeptical of global warming research, he was invited to testify at a climate hearing by Democrats after he published an essay in The New York Times in which he declared himself a "converted skeptic."

Then there's Jerry Taylor, who sowed doubt about climate science for years at the conservative Cato Institute, before launching the Niskanen Center to promote carbon taxes.

Shellenberger's conversion is less distinct. He has long been a critic of environmental groups for what he claims is their unwarranted assault on nuclear power as a carbon-free fuel source.

He delights in Twitter takedowns of those who question his motives. Shellenberger has billed himself as an expert reviewer of the assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The position is open to anyone who signs up.

He also seeks bipartisan affirmation.

He claimed that Biden's plan to support nuclear energy was influenced by his years of work on the issue. He said climate envoy John Kerry contacted him to arrange an hourlong meeting last summer after reading his book. They talked about climate change, nuclear energy and renewables, Shellenberger said.

"I just had a bestselling book on this translated into a few languages where it makes the case for saving existing nuclear plants. My TED talks have been viewed like 6 million times on this issue, but you're saying I didn't have anything to do on this issue," he said, suggesting that Biden adopted some of his views.

Shellenberger's op-eds and right-wing media appearances are littered with cherry-picked statistics and bold claims that don't all stand up to scrutiny, according to climate scientists, including one of his own advisers.

In an op-ed for The Australian headlined "On Behalf of Environmentalists, I Apologize for the Climate Scare," Shellenberger claims, "Climate change is not making natural disasters worse."

Kerry Emanuel. Photo credit: Gage Skidmore/Flickr

Kerry Emanuel, a climate scientist with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said Shellenberger isn't following the science. Gage Skidmore/Flickr

Kerry Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told E&E News that Shellenberger is spreading misinformation about the risks of climate change and natural disasters. Emanuel, an expert on climate change and hurricanes, is a science adviser for Shellenberger's pro-nuclear group Environmental Progress.

Emanuel said he has tried unsuccessfully to persuade Shellenberger to follow the science.

"I think that he uses misleading facts to try to downplay the climate risks," Emanuel said in an interview.

He noticed that Shellenberger changed his rhetoric on climate around the time his book was published. He said Shellenberger needs to do "more homework" on climate risks. Instead of focusing on the low probability of minimal future impacts, he should look at the risks of more severe consequences, Emanuel said.

"Something did happen to him about the time he published the book or before that, that he never used to complain about risk estimates associated with climate change. Something changed," Emanuel said.

Shellenberger dismissed the criticism and then leveled his own.

"Kerry [Emanuel] makes a significant amount of money hyping climate risk. I've told him I thought that was a conflict of interest. When you look at the science, the science says what the science says," said Shellenberger, who has a master's degree in anthropology and worked in public relations for years.

As a Californian, Shellenberger has also diminished the effects of rising temperatures on wildfires.

"California's forest fires were due to the buildup of wood fuel after decades of fire suppression," Shellenberger wrote in a New York Post opinion piece last year with the headline "Climate change hysteria costs lives but activists want to keep panic alive."

Like other Shellenberger claims, saying that forest management played a role in the fires is not technically wrong, but it's misleading by omission, according to scientists.

"In California, observed warming and drying more than doubled the occurrence of extreme fire weather conditions between 1979 and 2018 a trend that is attributable to human-caused climate change," wrote Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA, in a review of a Shellenberger article for Climate Feedback, a group of scientists that reviews articles for accuracy.

In his congressional testimony, Shellenberger has touched on many of the same things, oftentimes to receptive Republican audiences.

Democrats, meanwhile, have treated him as a hostile witness. Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) said in a hearing last year that Shellenberger "has spent his career creating, publicizing and monetizing a totally fake narrative."

Still, Shellenberger insists his message is for everybody.

That effort to appear bipartisan by insisting that climate change is real, but not real enough to prompt an existential crisis might be as damaging, or more, as overt denial, some scientists say.

"That message really resonates with Republicans. People like Shellenberger provide cover for the continued policies that really ultimately will do nothing to address the real climate problem," said Peter Gleick, a climate and water scientist and president emeritus of the Pacific Institute.

Excerpt from:

POLITICS: This Democrat is shaping the GOP's new climate narrative - E&E News

'Kudlow' host says progressives' movement against Israel is slowly taking over the party

Kudlow host Larry Kudlow slammed the Democrat party Wednesday for refusing to support Israel.

LARRY KUDLOW: There was a time in American politics, really stretching all the way back, I think, to Harry Truman, when political and financial leaders in the Jewish community were staunch supporters of the Democratic Party. Especially the national Democratic Party in presidential elections. And, this was principal because of solid Democratic support for Israel. Nice and simple.

As time went on and Democrats moved to the left with respect to higher taxing and higher spending and anti-business policies, the presidential coalition still held up because Jewish supporters of Israel stayed with the Democrats. In those days, Republicans were suspect because many of their old-line waspy backers belonged to country clubs and other exclusive groups that wouldnt accept Jewish members.

Even worse, there was a kind of unspoken, unholy subterranean view that the big oil companies were always in bed with the GOP while doing business with Israels Arab enemies in the Middle East. In my professional lifetime, going back all the way to the Reagan years when I served, I remember this scenario, and I remember these, shall we say, thoughts. I never liked it.

But now, I am happy to report, things are changing in a very big way. Yesterday, for example, the Democratic-run house blocked a bill, listen to this, they blocked a bill that would have imposed sanctions on foreign entities known to provide financial assistance to the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hamas.

WATCH LARRY KUDLOW'S FULL MONOLOGUE HERE

See the rest here:

Larry Kudlow: Democrats supporting Iran-backed terrorists rather than Israel - Fox Business