Category Archives: Democrat

Despite the Biden administrations denial, we have a crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, and the failure to enforce our laws will have a ripple effect throughout our country, whether it is an increase in crime in our communities or a rise in COVID-19 cases along the border and in communities where migrants are sent.

The United States is a nation built on law and order, and we have immense respect for our law enforcement officers who work to keep our communities safe. Yet the American Dream is under attack because the Biden administration has proven that it has no regard for the rule of law.

First, the Biden team was silent when radical Democrats aggressively pushed to defund the police. Now, progressives are advocating for open borders and expanded amnesty for illegal immigrants, which will draw even more unlawful migration into our country.

NIKKI HALEY: BIDEN'S BORDER CRISIS HERE ARE LESSONS HE CAN LEARN FROM TRUMP'S IMMIGRATION EXAMPLE

These policies have resulted in an unprecedented crisis at the border. Parents are handing their children to drug traffickers and human smugglers to make the perilous trek alone in dangerous conditions. These criminals are profiting from the Biden administrations open border policies, creating a climate of false belief that anyone can cross the border with impunity.

Last week, we traveled to the border to see this crisis firsthand. The out-of-control stream of illegal immigrants across the U.S.-Mexico border continues to exhaust our hardworking Border Patrol agents and other law enforcement officials who work tirelessly day and night.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

In March, Border Patrol agents apprehendedmore than171,000 migrants at the southern border, marking a 15-year high. This includes nearly 19,000 unaccompanied minors, which tops the prior all-time monthly high of nearly 12,000 in May 2019.

The crisis at the border has allowed an average of 2,200 illegal migrants often cartel smugglers bringing drugs to enter the United States daily without being captured.

We heard from Border Patrol agents about the disastrous effect that the Biden administrations executive orders are having along the border. By ending the Migrant Protection Protocols, Border Patrol has been inundated by the surge of migrants crossing the border. With limited capacity to detain the migrants, the Obama-Biden policy of "catch and release" is back, and Border Patrol agents are forced to release migrants, many of whom have COVID, into our communities.

Our personal experiences at the border were a searing indictment of the Biden-Harris administrations policies and how dangerous they can be for the families and young children who made such a dangerous journey. This has led to a humanitarian crisis where we witnessed crying children packed into crowded cells at processing centers, forced to sleep on the floor inchesapart from each other.

We visited the holding cells President Biden set up for young children, and each had over 400 people crowded inside a cell that was designed to hold 33 people.

This and other heartbreaking scenes we saw at the border were shocking, and if these policies continue, even more families and children will be forced into perilous situations like what we saw firsthand.

President Biden must reverse his failed policies that created this crisis, and Congress must take decisive action on border security.

Customs and Border Protection is overwhelmed trying to handle the surge, and children are being held in cells longer than the law allows due to the backlogged system. The Department of Homeland Security estimates this will only get worse as the year goes on.

The scale of this crisis should be obvious to anyone paying even a little attention to the news. It is clear that the Biden administrations actions to roll back proven Trump administration policies that stemmed the flow of migrants has created a surge of illegal immigration.

President Biden must reverse his failed policies that created this crisis, and Congress must take decisive action on border security. But Democrats in Congress have taken the opposite approach and forced through bills incentivizing illegal immigration by providing taxpayer benefits and green cards to violent criminals and gang members.

Instead of passing reckless legislation, President Biden and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.,should be focused on securing our border.

Walls work, and our Border Patrol agents have said that a secure border is the strongest deterrent to illegal immigration. Over the past four years, Congress has provided funding to construct 458 miles of wall, barriersand fencing along our southern border. Under the Trump administration, we were making progress in securing the border and deterring illegal immigration. However, President Biden halted wall construction, even as contractors still get paid.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Our visit to the border showed us in stark terms how the Biden administrations destructive immigration policies have hurt children on the ground. Our Border Patrol agents are pulled away from stopping drug dealers to instead babysit young migrants. Their facilities dangerously exceed maximum capacity, and there is a constant fear that the crowds of unlawful immigrants may spur a COVID-19 super spreader event.

The fact is, Joe Biden and the Democrats have all but declared Americas border open during a deadly pandemic. We have seen the devastating effects of these policies in person, and we must take action to secure the border and protect our national security.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM REP. STEVE SCALISE

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY REP. ANN WAGNER

Republican Ann Wagner represents Missouris 2nd district and serves on the House Financial Services Committee.

See the rest here:

Reps. Scalise & Wagner: Democrats' open border crisis here are the heartbreaking images we saw firsthand - Fox News

A group of Democratic lawmakers plan to introduce a bill Thursday to expand the Supreme Court from 9 justices to 13.

In a statement on Twitter, Rep. Mondaire Jones said he is introducing the Judiciary Act of 2021 because our democracy is under assault, and the Supreme Court has dealt the sharpest blows. To restore power to the people, we must #expandthecourt.

Reps. Jones, Jerry Nadler, Hank Johnson and Senator Ed Markey are reportedly holding a press conference Thursday morning to unveil their bill.

The bill is unlikely to become law, given the Democrats' slim majority in the House and Senate.

The announcement is less than a week after President Joe Biden signed an executive order forming a commission to study the possibility of adding more justices to the Supreme Court, in addition to other possible reforms.

The 36-member commission is planning to hold public meetings, and has 180 days to complete a report.

The Supreme Court has had nine justices since 1869.

Read more here:

Congressional Democrats to introduce bill to expand Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices - The Denver Channel

ALBANY The Democratic mayoral primary is down to two candidates, but two write-ins are still running. Common Council candidates have popped up to challenge incumbents and several races are already in court.

Welcome to city election season.

Just a few months ago, the electoral picture looked much quieter. Mayor Kathy Sheehan didnt have an established Democratic opponent. The 6th Ward council race, with five declared candidates, appeared to be the most highly contested in the city and no opponents had announced plans publicly yet to take on incumbent council members.

That has all changed.

The only two Democrats on the ballot for mayor on June 22 will be Mayor Kathy Sheehan and the Rev. Valerie Faust. Fausts campaign successfully challenged the petitions submitted by activists Marlon Anderson and Lukee Forbes.

Forbes did not respond to a message seeking comment but previously said he would run as a write-in candidate for the general election.

Anderson said hes still running as a write-in candidate for the Democratic line. He criticized Fausts campaign for challenging his petitions and then asking him to assist with her campaign to beat Sheehan.

Anderson shared messages from the Faust campaign alerting him that he had been knocked off the ballot before he received official notification from the Albany County Board of Elections and urging him to realize that defeating Sheehan was the main goal.

Elections should be decided by the vote of the people and the public records of the candidates running for the office, not in the offices of the BOE or by political operatives manipulating archaic rules, to suppress the vote and will of the people, Anderson said.

Fausts campaign is being run by two Democratic operatives who have butted heads with Sheehans administration before former city councilman Judd Krasher and Anthony Catalano, Jr.

In an email, Krasher said Fausts campaign believed members of Sheehans campaign were quietly trying to help Anderson get on the ballot in order to split the votes against Sheehan. They reached out to Anderson to test that theory, he said.

Mr. Andersons doubling down on his vitriol against Rev. Faust further solidified the theory, Krasher wrote in an email.

Council rivalries aplenty

The council, which has five members stepping down after this year, has nine Democratic primaries as of Wednesday.

Two of those are in court over challenges to petitions. In the 11th Ward, Councilman Alfredo Balarin is challenging the petitions of Luis Williams. Balarin said his campaign took Williams to court claiming that when he recently renewed his license, it matched his childhood home in Rensselaer County. Williams later updated that address on file with the county board of elections in March to match the one he used to gather petitions.

Under the city charter, residents must live in the city for a year before running for office.

Williams, who owns Celebrity Barbershop on Central Avenue, said he hadnt lived at that Rensselaer County address since he was teen and has lived above his shop for over a decade. Williams' campaign also pointed to his continuous voting record in Albany since 2004.

Over in the 14th Ward, which is an open race due to Councilman Joseph Igoes retirement, Celia Evers is challenging the petitions of her opponent, Deborah Zamer, in court.

Evers campaign believes Zamer illegally modified her petitions after she went to submit them to Albany County Board of Elections.

Evers attorney is former congressman John Sweeney, who assisted former president Donald Trumps efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Sweeney, one of the few election lawyers in the area, has worked on local races before, including a 2013 case in which he successfully got a Democratic 1st Ward candidate back on the ballot after his own name was misspelled on his petitions.

Evers declined to comment before a hearing on the matter Thursday. Zamers campaign called Evers decision to hire Sweeney and try to throw out Zamers petitions intimidation tactics.

Using Trump-lawyer John Sweeney to sue me and the 486 voters who signed my nominating petitions, to silence us, is the worst of Albany machine politics. My Democratic opponent has given her blessing to GOP voter suppression tactics, so she doesnt have to face me or the voters, Zamer said in a statement.

Also running for an open seat is former county legislator Brian Scavo, who was convicted in 2015 of two counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument. Scavo is running in the 7th Ward against Violetta De Rosa and Sergio Adams.Scavodid not return a call for comment. He waged a losing campaign for a legislature seat in 2019.

The other Democratic primaries for open seats are the 6th Ward, where there is a contest among Jeff Mayo, Susan Pedo and Gabriella Romero, and the 9th Ward, where the race is between Jolyn Gallagher and Meghan Keegan.

A number of challengers to incumbents have popped up as well, helped in part by the lowered number of signatures needed to get on the ballot.

In the 1st Ward, Sonia Frederick, who was appointed to the seat in 2020 and won a special election to finish out the term, faces Scott Mannarino. In the 2nd Ward, Councilman Derek Johnson is being challenged by Lovett Branch.

In the 3rd Ward, Councilwoman Joyce Love is being challenged by James Davis and Stephen Negron. In the 5th Ward, Councilman Jahmel Robinson faces a challenge from Wilbur Decky Lawson.

Excerpt from:

Mayor Kathy Sheehan will face Rev. Valerie Faust in Democratic primary - Times Union

The feud between Republicans and major corporations over voting laws is creating an opportunity for Democrats and President BidenJoe BidenBiden eyes bigger US role in global vaccination efforts Trump says GOP will take White House in 2024 in prepared speech Kemp: Pulling All-Star game out of Atlanta will hurt business owners of color MORE to build new political ties.

GOP ties with big business frayed during the Trump era, when corporations sometimes found themselves at the end of then-PresidentTrumps barbs, and were often uncomfortable with his rhetoric about women, minorities and immigrants.

Now the tensions are rising again as companies speak out against Georgias voting law, and Major League Baseball pulls its All-Star Game from Atlanta in protest.

Democrats are seeing an opportunity to build inroads with business, despite real differences over some policies.

The business community trusts us because we are bringing stability and reliability to a process that has been incredibly chaotic for the last four years, said Rep. Brad SchneiderBradley (Brad) Scott SchneiderDemocrats see opportunity in GOP feud with business Democrats have a growing tax problem with SALT Taking a closer look at the future of our nation's supply chains MORE (D-Ill.), chairman of the moderate, pro-business Democrats NewDem Action Fund.

Differences between the White House and Democrats and business arent hard to find.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable and National Association of Manufacturers are among the groups opposed to raising the corporate tax rate, a key provision in Bidens infrastructure proposal.

The battle over the infrastructure bill in some ways is a return to the past, when business groups were reliable allies of Republicans.

Its absolutely the wrong time to impose new burdens on the private sector, GOP fundraiser Dan Eberhart said in a recent interview. Hes taking investment decisions away from the private sector and handing control to government.

Yet the divisions between business and the GOP are growing, despite their alignment on some traditional issues.

As Trumps brand of populism has sprouted within the GOP, it has created new tensions with business over issues such as trade. Moderate Democrats in Congress want to take advantage of those tensions and paint themselves as the steady party for business to work with.

Democrats should try to be the good governing party. I think theres a lot of demand for that from the public and business. Democrats ... should consider themselves the party that can work with business. That doesnt mean you can always agree on everything, so there is still that tension point on various issues that will happen over time, said Daniella Ballou-Aares, who worked in the Obama State Department.

Democrats are optimistic Biden can deliver wins for the business community like the COVID-19 relief package, which business leaders embraced although it received no Republican support.

It would be a missed opportunity for business and for Biden not to work towards successful legislation. ... Were so at that moment and I think it would be a shame if that moment is allowed to pass by on either side, Ballou-Aares said.

The other big dividing line for business and the GOP, magnified by Trump, was on issues of race.

A number of CEOs spoke out against Trump when he said both sides were to blame in Charlottesville, Va., after white supremacists and Nazis battled counterprotesters in August 2017.

The fight over Georgias voting law revolves around corporations wanting to distance themselves from any effort seen as preventing minority groups from voting particularly after Trumps unsubstantiated allegations just months ago that widespread fraud led to his electoral loss. Misinformation surrounding the election culminated in an angry mob attacking the Capitol.

Republicans argue the true nature of the Georgia voting law has been misstated by Democrats and the media, and that corporations are essentially turning on them in favor of a new woke culture.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellHarry Reid reacts to Boehner book excerpt: 'We didn't mince words' Democrats see opportunity in GOP feud with business Biden resists calls to give hard-hit states more vaccines than others MORE (R-Ky.) cautioned corporations to "stay out of politics" as multiple companies expressed their opposition to the new Georgia voting law.

And dont be intimidated by the left into taking up causes that put you right in the middle of one of Americas greatest political debates, he said Monday.

Its hard to see Democrats and big business forming a true lasting partnership.

Progressives in Congress are deeply critical of corporate America, which is increasingly a target for populists in both parties. Liberals have pressured Biden to distance himself from Wall Street, launching campaigns even against some would-be Biden nominees deemed to have corporate ties.

Yet Trump has also left a real opening for Democrats.

Dozens of companies responded to the Capitol riot by freezing donations to the 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the election results after the mob was turned out of the halls of Congress.

Trump has also continued to be an antagonist, calling for his supporters to boycott Coca-Cola and other companies that have expressed concerns about the new Georgia voting law.

A former senior official in the Trump Commerce Department said if Democrats and the White House can solidify the relationship with business, it could help them in the 2022 elections.

If the Biden team can reassure business that they will always have a seat at the table, they could really leverage a historic break with their natural allies in the GOP and change the landscape of these many suburban races, the former official said.

Follow this link:

Democrats see opportunity in GOP feud with business | TheHill - The Hill

The House Speaker needs all her skill to keep her shrinking majority in control. Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images

Fifteen-term congressman Alcee Hastings of Florida died on April 6 at the age of 84, apparently from pancreatic cancer. That means there are now five vacancies in the U.S. House of Representatives. Unlike the Senate, the House does not allow states to fill vacancies temporarily or permanently via appointments; special elections are required. Hastings was a Democrat, like Cedric Richmond, Marcia Fudge, and Deb Haaland, all of whom resigned from House seats to accept positions in the Biden administration. Theres also one empty seat previously held by Republicans in Texas, which was vacated by the death of Ron Wright in February.

So the 222-213 margin by which Democrats originally held the House after the 2020 elections is currently at 218-212, pending special elections in May (Louisiana and Texas), June (New Mexico), and November (Ohio), with Floridas date not yet established. The Texas and New Mexico districts are somewhat competitive but lean Republican and Democratic, respectively. The rest are not competitive.

As The Cook Political Reports Amy Walter noted before Hastingss death, for all the talk of Joe Manchins leverage in the Senate, it wouldnt take many House Democrats to upset Nancy Pelosis apple cart, either.

Thus far, only Rep. Jared Golden (ME-02) has been a consistent defector. He was the one Democrat to vote against the American Recovery Act. Most recently, he was the only Democrat to vote against a Democratic immigration bill.

There are six other Democrats who, like Golden, sit in districts that Donald Trump won in 2020. Those include Cheri Bustos (IL-17), Cindy Axne (IA-03), Elissa Slotkin (MI-08), Matt Cartwright (PA-08), Andy Kim (NJ-03), and Ron Kind (WI-03). Another 18 Democrats won in 2020 withless than 52 percentof the vote.

Redistricting may help shore up the districts of some of these Democrats like Bustosin western Illinois. But new lines couldalso put those like Tom OHalleran (AZ-01)in an even more competitive or challenging CD.

Assuming the May special elections go as expected and cancel one another out, between now and June, Pelosi can afford to lose only two Democratic votes and still enact legislation. Luckily for her, the House Democratic Caucus is more ideologically cohesive than it has been since well, maybe forever. As Walter observed, Back in 2009, for example, Democrats had a whopping 40-seat majority, but 22 of them represented conservative districts in deep-red states like Oklahoma, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, West Virginia, and Mississippi. What theyve lost in numbers theyve gained in unity.

And fortunately for Democrats, Pelosi is firmly established as one of the most skillful legislative leaders in the storied history of House Speakers. Still, you never know when the Grim Reaper, a scandal, or simply an unexpected personal decision could produce another vacancy. And politicians being politicians, you can be sure that quiet, self-convened caucuses of Democrats have taken a look at which prizes they may be able to secure by threatening or even executing a revolt.

So far, Pelosi has kept firm control in what she has said will be her last term as Speaker. Before deciding on a successor, Democrats will face a tough fight to maintain a majority in the midterms, when the presidents party almost always loses ground.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

See the original post here:

Democrats Control of the House Is Increasingly Fragile - New York Magazine

As President BidenJoe BidenBiden eyes bigger US role in global vaccination efforts Trump says GOP will take White House in 2024 in prepared speech Kemp: Pulling All-Star game out of Atlanta will hurt business owners of color MORE races ahead with a mammoth plan to bolster the nation's infrastructure, Democrats are gambling they'll get a political boost from an accompanying proposal: the tax hikes designed to defray the massive costs.

Biden on Wednesday outlined a slate of tax reforms aimed at raising $2.5 trillion much of it from large corporations to underwrite the new infrastructure spending. The proposal was quickly roasted by Republicans, who have long portrayed Democrats as the party of higher taxes and are now warning that Biden's plan would hurt small businesses and kill American jobs.

Yet national polls have consistently revealed that tax hikes on corporations and other wealthy taxpayers enjoy strong support among a broad array of voters, including independents. And some Democrats are practically drooling at the prospect of bringing that debate to the national stage to highlight the GOP's resistance to a popular concept.

If they fight the infrastructure bill over asking corporations to pay more in taxes, that's a total loser, Rep. John YarmuthJohn Allen YarmuthDemocrats see political winner in tax fight McConnell knocks Kentucky Democrat over support for nixing filibuster Democrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP MORE (D-Ky.), chairman of the Budget Committee, said this week in a phone interview.

It's just sort of a nonsense argument, and I think that's an indication of how vulnerable the Republicans are on this issue, he added. The issue sets up perfectly for those, like us, who are promoting significant investment in infrastructure and saying to major corporations, Since your businesses depend on infrastructure, you can do more to pay for it. "

The idea is hardly new. Democrats have sought for decades to close tax-avoidance loopholes enjoyed by corporations and other wealthy taxpayers, largely to no avail. And Republicans in 2017 were able to expand those benefits as part of former President TrumpDonald TrumpHarry Reid reacts to Boehner book excerpt: 'We didn't mince words' Man arrested for allegedly threatening to stab undercover Asian officer in NYC Trump says GOP will take White House in 2024 in prepared speech MOREs tax overhaul, which included a reduction in the corporate rate from 35 to 21 percent.

But after a year of turmoil caused by the coronavirus crisis when stocks soared but millions of low-income workers lost their jobs Democrats think the uneven economic impact of the pandemic has shifted public opinion enough in their favor to make the controversial tax hikes a political asset.

Indeed, a new Morning Consult/Politico survey found that 54 percent of voters support sweeping infrastructure improvements financed by tax hikes, including 73 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of independents.

When the biggest corporations evade taxes, or pay a net rate on the average of something like 7 or 8 percent, smaller businesses and individuals have to make up the difference, Rep. Dan KildeeDaniel (Dan) Timothy KildeeDemocrats see political winner in tax fight Lawmakers say manufacturers are in better position to handle future pandemics The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Biden to hit road, tout COVID-19 relief law MORE (D-Mich.), a senior member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, told The Hill. So I think that, as much as it is about pay-fors, it's also about tax fairness.

As ammunition, Democrats are pointing to a recent report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a progressive think tank, which found that 55 of the nations largest corporations including Nike, FedEx and Salesforce paid no federal taxes in 2020 despite enormous pre-tax profits. In some cases, the companies received a substantial federal rebate.

The report was reminiscent of last years revelation that Trump, a self-proclaimed billionaire, had paid only $750 in federal income tax in both 2016 and 2017. Both reports have infuriated Democrats who are vowing to create a fairer system and all but daring Republicans to defend tax loopholes that favor the wealthy.

Freeways arent free. And corporate freeloaders like the 55 large profitable corporations who paid no federal income tax in 2020 should pay for the infrastructure and other services upon which they depend, Rep. Lloyd DoggettLloyd Alton DoggettDemocrats see political winner in tax fight Progressives up pressure on Biden to back COVID vaccine patent waiver House passes bills providing citizenship path for Dreamers, farmworkers MORE (D-Texas), another senior member of the Ways and Means panel, said in an email.

Unveiled Wednesday, Biden's tax plan features a series of reforms designed to compel large corporations and businesses to contribute a larger share of earnings to the federal government. It does so largely by hiking the corporate tax rate from 21 to 28 percent; prohibiting companies from shifting profits to low-tax havens overseas; and creating a new 15-percent minimum tax on large companies that report profits to investors, but no liabilities to the IRS.

Treasury Secretary Janet YellenJanet Louise YellenBiden eyes bigger US role in global vaccination efforts Democrats see political winner in tax fight WHO chief laments 'shocking imbalance' in vaccines for poor countries MORE briefed House Democrats on the proposal on Tuesday. And Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiSunday shows preview: Democrats eye two-part infrastructure push; Michigan coronavirus cases surge Pence pleaded with military officials to 'clear the Capitol' on Jan. 6: AP Democrats see political winner in tax fight MORE (D-Calif.) said Thursday that Democrats are hoping to move the entire package infrastructure and tax provisions alike through Congress and to Biden's desk by August.

The president is open to policy suggestions from lawmakers in both parties, Pelosi said. But it can't be too small, she added, because what we're talking about now needs to be transformative and it has to be big.

Democratic leaders are seeking a delicate balance.While liberals in the party are supportive of massive new infrastructure spending even pressing Biden to go bigger than his $2 trillion proposal the partys moderates are wary of both the size of the package and the effects on deficit spending.

Does it really have to be a $2 trillion package at this moment? I don't think that we should concede that, said an aide to a centrist Democrat in the House. At the very least, we should try to pay for as much of this as possible.

They can afford few defections.

Pelosi has just a razor-thin majority in the House, made even thinner by the recent death of Rep. Alcee HastingsAlcee (Judge) Lamar HastingsDemocrats see political winner in tax fight The Hill's Morning Report - Biden bumps up vaccine eligibility amid 'life or death' race Biden mourns passing of Rep. Alcee Hastings MORE (D-Fla.). And the split is an even 50-50 in the Senate, where Sen. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinClose the avenues of foreign meddling Democrats see political winner in tax fight MSNBC's Joy Reid pans Manchin, Sinema as the 'no progress caucus' MORE, a moderate West Virginia Democrat, is already flexing his outsized influence in opposing Bidens plan to raise the corporate rate to 28 percent.

Those internal frictions have not been overlooked by Republicans, who are fighting to make the tax package as uncomfortable as possible for centrist Democrats in tough battleground districts.

With that in mind, the Republicans this week are highlighting another report, sponsored by the National Association of Manufacturers, predicting that an increase in the corporate rate to 28 percent combined with the elimination of several other corporate benefits would cost the country 1 million jobs in just two years. And the Republicans' campaign arm has pounced, launching a broad-based email campaign linking vulnerable Democrats across the country to the threat of heightened unemployment sparked by Biden's proposal.

No president has ever raised business taxes to rebuild an economy, Rep. Kevin BradyKevin Patrick BradyDemocrats see political winner in tax fight The Hill's Morning Report - Biden may find zero GOP support for jobs plan GOP seeks new line of attack on Biden economic plans MORE (Texas), senior Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, told CNBC this week. At the end of the day, we're going to see slower hiring, [and] we're going to see less investment in the U.S.

Democrats remain undaunted. Infrastructure was among just three named policy priorities they'd championed on the campaign trail in 2018, when they won control of the House. And after COVID-19 relief, it remains the top domestic priority of Biden, who's already using the bully pulpit in an effort to sell his plan to the public at large.

If the early debate is any indication, the Democrats' pitch is going to lean heavily on the concept of fairness.

You've got Amazon whose entire business is built on having adequate infrastructure and they paid 1.2 percent last year and zero [percent] the two years before that. And they made $30 billion, said Yarmuth.

That's not fair in anybody's book.

Link:

Democrats see political winner in tax fight | TheHill - The Hill

WASHINGTON When a Republican lawmaker approached Representative Veronica Escobar, a Democrat, on the House floor recently with a routine request that she sign on to a resolution he was introducing, she initially refused.

Ms. Escobar personally liked the man, a fellow Texan, and she supported his bill. But she held the Republican, who had voted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election just hours after rioters stormed the Capitol, partly responsible for the deadly attack and questioned whether she could work with him.

Moments after declining, however, Ms. Escobar had second thoughts.

Go ahead and count me in, Ms. Escobar recalled telling the man, whom she declined to identify in an interview. But I just want you to know that what you all did I havent gotten past it. And it was wrong, and it was terrible. And its not something that I think we should gloss over.

In the immediate aftermath of the assault on the Capitol that left five dead, irate Democrats vowed to punish Republicans for their roles in perpetuating or indulging former President Donald J. Trumps fiction of a stolen election that motivated the mob that attacked the building. There was talk of cutting off certain Republicans entirely from the legislative process, denying them the basic courtesies and customs that allow the House to function even in polarized times.

Democrats introduced a series of measures to censure, investigate and potentially expel members who, in the words of one resolution, attempted to overturn the results of the election and incited a white supremacist attempted coup. But the legislation went nowhere and to date no punishment has been levied against any members of Congress for their actions related to Jan. 6.

What has unfolded instead has been something of an uneasy dtente on Capitol Hill, as Democrats reckon with what they experienced that day and struggle to determine whether they can salvage their relationships with Republicans some of whom continue to cast doubt on the legitimacy of President Bidens victory and whether they even want to try.

I dont want to permanently close that door, Ms. Escobar said. But I cant walk through it right now.

Republicans have felt the breach as well. Representative Michael Waltz, Republican of Florida, who did not vote to overturn Mr. Bidens victory but joined a lawsuit challenging the election results, said feelings ran raw after the mob violence at the Capitol.

I had some candid conversations with members that I have a good relationship with. There was a lot of heated emotion, Mr. Waltz said. Still, he said, I didnt experience a freeze.

He recently teamed up with Representative Anthony G. Brown, Democrat of Maryland, to round up 70 Republicans and 70 Democrats for a letter to the Biden administration laying out parameters for an Iran nuclear deal.

The dilemma of whether to join such bipartisan efforts is particularly charged for centrist Democrats from conservative-leaning districts, who won office on the promise of working with Republicans but say they find it difficult to accept that some of those same colleagues spread lies that fueled the first invasion of the Capitol since the War of 1812.

Adding to the tensions, most Republicans insist that they did nothing wrong, arguing that their push to invalidate the election results was merely an effort to raise concerns about the integrity of the vote. Some have reacted angrily to Democrats moves to punish them.

Days after Representative Jason Smith, Republican of Missouri, voted to throw out electoral votes for Mr. Biden, an aide to Representative Cindy Axne, Democrat of Iowa, curtly rebuffed a request from his office to discuss writing insurance legislation together.

Our office is declining to work with your office at this time, given your bosss position on the election, the aide wrote in an email to an aide to Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith later sought to turn the tables on Ms. Axne, posting the email on his official Twitter account after she highlighted her work with Republicans.

Thats odd, Mr. Smith wrote, appending a screenshot of the exchange. This is the last message my staff got from you. Are you no longer kicking Republicans off your bills?

A spokesman for Mr. Smith did not respond to a request to elaborate on the incident.

Representative Abigail Spanberger, Democrat of Virginia, who was in the House gallery on Jan. 6, said she had taken it upon herself to try to facilitate a reconciliation or at least an airing out of differences.

Its been a really challenging time, she said. Literally, people were murdered in our workplace. For some people, that is deeply troublesome, and for some people, they want to move on faster than others are ready.

In the days after the attack, the wounds it laid bare seemed almost too deep to heal. As the mob tore closer to lawmakers on Jan. 6, Representative Dean Phillips, a mild-mannered Minnesota Democrat known for fostering bipartisan relationships, shouted at Republicans, This is because of you!

Afterward, lawmakers nearly came to blows on the House floor and got into heated arguments in the hallways. Some Democrats were so nervous that their Republican colleagues might draw weapons on the floor that House leaders set up metal detectors outside the chamber, drawing loud protests from gun-toting lawmakers in the Republican Party.

Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California and the chairwoman of the Administration Committee, released a review of Republicans incendiary remarks on social media before the attack.

Some Democrats, particularly the most progressive lawmakers from safe districts who rarely found occasion to work with Republicans even before the riot, have pressed to penalize the G.O.P. systematically in its aftermath, arguing that there can be no return to normalcy. A spreadsheet of Republicans who voted to overturn the election, outlining how many states electoral votes they moved to cast out, has circulated widely among Democratic offices.

But there has been little action to truly cut Republicans out of the work of Congress. When Representative Sean Casten of Illinois moved to punish a Republican who had voted to overturn the election results by forcing a recorded vote on his bill to rename a post office the kind of measure that normally sails through unchallenged only 15 other Democrats joined Mr. Casten in opposing it. As some rank-and-file Democrats sought to expel the Republican conspiracy theorist Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia from the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the move was not a leadership position. (Leaders did, however, take the unusual step of stripping Ms. Greene of her committee seats.)

The reluctance stems, at least in part, from politics. Democrats owe their majority to a group of lawmakers from competitive districts who say their constituents elected them to work with Republicans to get legislation done.

Retreating or closing myself off to any kind of conversations or working with folks on the other side of the aisle it doesnt feel like an option for me, said Representative Sharice Davids, the only Democrat in the Kansas congressional delegation. Even when it feels hard.

Representative Susan Wild, Democrat of Pennsylvania, was in the House gallery on Jan. 6 and had what she believed was a panic attack as she crouched on the floor and heard the noise from the mob grow closer. But she said in an interview that she had moved past the election issue, adding that she was not one to hold grudges.

I havent talked to a single Republican about that day. Nothing. At all, said Ms. Wild, who has resumed working with Pennsylvania Republicans on legislation, even though most of them voted to overturn the election. I dont want it to get in the way of other things that I want to work on with them. I know that it would, because I would be angry.

Many House Republicans have refrained from discussing the attack, while some have tried to rewrite history and argue that they never claimed the election was stolen, despite their objections. One tried to remove mentions of the assault from a resolution honoring the police officers who defended the Capitol that day. Some have continued to deny that Mr. Biden was legitimately elected, while still others have sought to deflect attention from the riot or downplay the factors that drove it.

When the House Armed Services Committee held a hearing recently to examine domestic extremism in the military, Representative Pat Fallon, Republican of Texas, complained that the session was political theater and a waste of the panels time.

The chairman, Representative Adam Smith of Washington, tartly replied that the topic deserved discussion, since 20 percent of the people that have been arrested from the Capitol Hill riots had a history of serving in the military.

Representative Rodney Davis of Illinois, the top Republican on the Administration Committee, objected to Ms. Lofgrens report cataloging his colleagues incendiary social media posts.

One Democrat, Representative Brad Schneider of Illinois, recently removed a Republican from a bill the two had worked on together for years, in line with his new policy of collaborating only with lawmakers who publicly state that Mr. Biden was legitimately elected.

But he said he had drawn some optimism from a blunt conversation with Representative Jody B. Hice, Republican of Georgia, whom he has worked with on environmental issues, about a speech Mr. Hice gave questioning his states electoral votes for Mr. Biden.

Mr. Hice said in a statement that he was proud that he and Mr. Schneider could put aside our differences on many of the hot-button political debates of the day to work together.

Still, Mr. Schneider said that many other Republicans were still questioning Mr. Bidens legitimacy and that some were even continuing to put lawmakers at risk with incendiary remarks.

The fact that there is how many at this point? that its not an insignificant number who are still trying to have it both ways, makes it harder to get something done in Congress, he said.

Visit link:

Democrats Are Torn Over Working With G.O.P. After Capitol Riot - The New York Times

Like death and taxes, its long been a fact of life that Iowa and New Hampshire kick off both the Republican and Democratic presidential primaries.

However, the nightmarish hellscape that was the Iowa caucuses in the 2020 Democratic primary the Iowa Democratic Party released barely any results the night of the caucuses because of technical problems heightened calls for ending Iowas reign as the first state to vote in the primary calendar.

But in some ways, the push to bump Iowa and New Hampshire from the start of the primary process has long been picking up steam among Democrats. Iowa and New Hampshire are two very white states 85 to 90 percent of each states population is non-Hispanic white and in 2020 neither state did much to influence the nomination race for a party that is now about 40 percent nonwhite. Now-President Biden won the Democratic primary despite finishing fourth in the Iowa caucuses and fifth in New Hampshires primary.

Yet the mounting opposition to Iowa and New Hampshire voting first might not be enough to actually depose them. Ultimately, state parties and/or governments decide the timing of their caucuses or primaries. And while the national party can encourage these decision-makers to schedule their contests on certain dates, it cannot unilaterally impose its will on the primary calendar. Moreover, because Republicans seem intent on keeping the two states in prime position for the 2024 campaign, it might be even more difficult for Democrats to make any changes.

Its true, though, that Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative of the Democratic electorate. Back in 2019, we used data from the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, a survey of more than 50,000 people conducted by YouGov in conjunction with Harvard University, to reorder Democrats primary calendar based on the similarity of each states Democratic electorate to the partys nationwide voter base. We found that Iowa and New Hampshire ranked in the bottom half of states in terms of how representative they were of the Democratic Partys voters, and thus would vote near the end of the primary season. (This analysis uses data from the 2016 presidential election, but considering how highly correlated the 2016 and 2020 presidential contests were, its hard to imagine the order would change that much if we had final 2020 data, which we dont.)

States by how similar their 2016 Democratic electorate is to the U.S. Democratic electorate in terms of voters race, ethnicity and education, where lower scores mean more similar

Other includes people who identified as Asian, Native American, Middle Eastern, mixed or other.

The Democratic electorate includes anyone who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and anyone who didnt vote for Clinton but identified as a Democrat.

Similarity is determined by Euclidean distance, where a distance of 0 means the items are identical and higher scores mean more dissimilarity.

Source: 2016 COOPERATIVE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION STUDY

Instead of the current order, a state like Illinois or New Jersey should go first by our calculations. That might be a hard sell, of course, considering a state like New Jersey has often voted at the end of the primary process, and underdog candidates would prefer not to run ads in the expensive media markets of Chicago, New York and Philadelphia.

As another option, Democrats have floated moving up Nevada, which ranked fifth in our similarity calculation and has been an early-voting state since 2008. Nevada Democrats, who have full control of state government, are even considering legislation to establish a state-run primary to try and jump ahead of New Hampshire, but its unclear whether such legislation, which has failed before in Nevada, will pass. (South Carolina is another leading alternative among Democrats, given its also an early-voting state and is one of the few states in the Democratic primary with a majority-Black primary electorate. It also proved vital to Bidens nomination in 2020.) Some Democrats even like the idea of promoting Pennsylvania, a pivotal swing state that ranked just behind Nevada in our analysis. However, in previous years Pennsylvania leaders have been reluctant to schedule an earlier date for the states consolidated primary, where it holds primaries for president and other offices on the same day.

And Pennsylvanias logistical concerns underscore one of the fundamental challenges to supplanting Iowa and New Hampshire: Doing so will require cooperation among the national parties, state parties and in the case of state-run primaries state governments, which is no easy task because these actors often have conflicting goals.

Although the Democratic National Committee can try to encourage states to schedule their contests in certain calendar windows with various carrots and sticks like handing out delegate bonuses or penalties they cant force states to cooperate. And Iowa and New Hampshire have no interest in giving up their valuable calendar real estate, which, beyond its outsized political influence, is also worth millions of dollars to each states local economy.

Take New Hampshire, where state law gives Secretary of State Bill Gardner unilateral power to move the primary date as necessary to protect the states distinction of hosting the cycles first presidential primary. This has arguably been Gardners raison dtre during his four-plus decades in office, as hes gone pretty far to keep New Hampshire first. Ahead of the 2012 GOP presidential primary, for instance, multiple states moved their primary dates up, which prompted Gardner to threaten that hed schedule New Hampshires contest in December 2011 if he had to. And in an age where theres little bipartisanship on most issues, maintaining New Hampshires privileged place unites Democratic and Republican leaders in the Granite State, so if Nevada does switch to a primary and tries to schedule it before New Hampshires primary, Gardner will just pick an even earlier date.

Democratic efforts to shake up the primary calendar would probably be more feasible if Republicans were on board, but theres little sign they are. Republican Party chairs from Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are banding together to protect their carve-out spots at the front of the line, and potential 2024 Republican presidential contenders arent anticipating radical shifts, as theyre already visiting Iowa and New Hampshire.

One reason for the GOPs apparent lack of interest in changing the schedule may be that it has fewer concerns than Democrats about these two states being representative: Using 2016 CCES data, we found Iowa ranked as the sixth-most representative state for Republicans, based on educational attainment and born-again religious identification although New Hampshire also ranked in the bottom half of all states.

Democrats may still try to relegate Iowas caucuses after the messy 2020 event, and some Iowa Democrats have acknowledged they will have to fight to hold onto their spot. But because the GOP isnt moving to supplant Iowa, attempts at the wholesale changes many Democrats want may be a bridge too far.

Now, moving Iowas caucuses wouldnt be as involved as moving the primary in New Hampshire because they are a party-run event and dont involve the state government. But even if the DNC heavily penalizes Iowa and New Hampshire for going first by reducing or even eliminating their delegates, it risks a situation where Republicans are still competing first in those states. This could prompt Democrats in those states to still hold their contests at the same time as Republicans, hoping the inevitably intense media coverage of the races preserves their influence over the overall nomination race.

At this early vantage point, we cant say what the primary schedule will look like in 2024, or if Democrats will even have a competitive race. (Biden has said he plans to seek reelection, but hell be 81 years old in 2024.) But what we can say at this point is that making major alterations to the nomination calendar has never been easy if it were, things wouldve changed already. And attempts to remove the two states that have long had a stranglehold on the top rung might prove to be especially messy.

Read the original here:

Many Democrats Are Sick Of Iowa And New Hampshire Going First, But The Primary Calendar Is Unlikely To Change - FiveThirtyEight

Although H.R. 1 has been around for a couple of yearsit was the first thing Democrats introduced in 2019, when they took over the Houseit uses the same strategy that the party adopted for COVID-19 relief and infrastructure: Throw as much stuff as possible in and try to ram it through. A Democratic aide told Voxs Andrew Prokop that about 60 separate bills were rolled together to make this bill. That worked with the relief package, but its creating complications for H.R. 1.

Read: Democrats only chance to stop the GOP assault on voting rights

Many Democrats support certain versions of campaign-finance reform, for example. But some of them, such as Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, are uncomfortable with the federal government meddling with state power over election administration (though its been done plenty in the past). Black Democrats are eager to roll back changes such as Georgias new law, which Senator Raphael Warnock has branded Jim Crow in new clothes, but The New York Times reports that some of them are also wary of independent commissions handling redistricting, a central idea of the bill but one that might carve up majority-minority districts, especially in the South.

All of the proposals are plausible reforms to improve democracy, though many Republicans disagree with these ideas. The various elements of the bill arent really at odds with one another, even if their supporters are. But they represent different theories about the most perilous threat to Democrats and to their voters.

Movements to reform campaign finance have been around since Mark Hanna pioneered the big-money campaign in 1896. Many have been bipartisan, culminating in the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act. But in the 21st century, campaign-finance reform has largely been a progressive priority. Left-of-center concerns grew especially sharp after the Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United decision, and for a time, many Democrats viewed that decision as the most pressing matter in politics. Unrestrained corporate donations would warp democracy, they warned, and also swamp Democratic candidates with donations to GOP candidates.

David A. Graham: The GOP abandons democracy

In 2016, Hillary Clinton placed that worry at the center of her presidential campaign. We need to appoint Supreme Court justices who will get money out of politics and expand voting rights, not restrict them, she said in her nomination-acceptance speech. And we'll pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United! (This was somewhat personal for Clintonthe Supreme Court case centered on a film attacking herthough she also enjoyed the support of super PACs that the decision had enabled during the campaign.)

Of course, Clinton did not move to overturn the decision, because she did not win. But her loss and the 2016 election were the beginning of the eclipse of campaign-finance reform as a central issue for Democrats. The rise of the fundraising platform ActBlue, and especially the astonishing small-dollar success of Senator Bernie Sanderss primary campaign, showed that Democrats could compete by amassing small donations. Meanwhile, pro-Clinton spending (both by her campaign and by outside groups) far outpaced pro-Trump spending. In 2020, the Democratic candidate, Joe Biden, barely mentioned Citizens United during his campaign.

See the rest here:

Democrats Are Short on Votes and Long on Irony - The Atlantic

WASHINGTON A top Senate official ruled on Monday that Democrats could use the fast-track budget reconciliation process for a second time this fiscal year, potentially handing them broader power to push through President Bidens agenda, including his infrastructure plan, over Republican opposition.

The decision by the parliamentarian means that Democrats can essentially reopen the budget plan they passed in February and add directives to enact the infrastructure package or other initiatives, shielding them from a filibuster that requires 60 votes to overcome.

It came as Democratic leaders were contemplating how to use their slim majorities in the House and Senate to enact Mr. Bidens infrastructure proposals, including a huge public-works plan he released last week and a second initiative to be released in the coming months to address economic inequities, provide paid leave to workers and support child care.

But the decision has potential significance beyond those plans, and even the current Congress. The guidance could substantially weaken the filibuster by allowing the majority party to use budget reconciliation a powerful tool that allows measures related to taxes and spending to pass on a majority vote multiple times in a single fiscal year. That would dilute the power of the minority to stall or block such legislation in the Senate, the latest bid by the party in power to chip away at the arcane filibuster rules.

It was not clear how Democrats would use their newfound power, or for what. But the preliminary guidance from Elizabeth MacDonough, the parliamentarian, most likely gives them additional opportunities to push elements of Mr. Bidens agenda through the 50-to-50 Senate without abolishing the filibuster or watering down their proposals to win at least 10 Republican votes.

Democrats had already used budget reconciliation to push through Mr. Bidens $1.9 trillion stimulus last month without any Republican votes. But with some Democrats reluctant to dismantle the filibuster, the rest of Mr. Bidens agenda risks stalling amid Republican objections.

Seeking alternative avenues, Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, had argued that the rules allowed the Senate to revisit the budget blueprint that allowed for passage of the pandemic relief plan and take at least one more crack at reconciliation before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.

Because there was no precedent for doing so, he asked Ms. MacDonough, a nonpartisan civil servant who interprets Senate rules, for guidance. On Monday, she blessed the maneuver, according to Justin Goodman, a spokesman for Mr. Schumer, who said that some parameters still need to be worked out.

The ruling allows Democrats additional tools to improve the lives of Americans if Republican obstruction continues, Mr. Goodman said in a statement, calling the opinion an important step forward in ensuring that this key pathway is available to Democrats if needed.

Democrats already had two more opportunities to use the reconciliation process during the 117th Congress, under budget blueprints for fiscal years 2022 and 2023. But the ruling from Ms. MacDonough allows them to use the maneuver at least two more times during this calendar year alone, and could further increase the opportunities for them to do so before the end of 2022.

The option does not guarantee a smooth path for Mr. Bidens agenda; with narrow majorities in both chambers, party leaders will have to keep Democrats almost entirely united to be able to use the maneuver successfully. And reconciliation is subject to strict budgetary rules that limit what can be included.

Top Democratic officials have declined to say when they will use the budget tool again. But lawmakers and aides have floated a number of possibilities, ranging from infrastructure to immigration, that could be steered around Republican objections and into law.

Its important because it gives us a little more flexibility we dont have to push everything into one package, Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who is chairman of the Budget Committee, said on MSNBC, listing a number of priorities he wanted to pass. The ruling of the parliamentarian gives us a little bit more opportunity in that direction.

Progressive lawmakers have increasingly agitated for a change to the rules of the Senate that would allow the party to dismantle the filibuster.

But any effort to pass further legislation with a simple majority will be considerably more difficult than it was with the stimulus package, which cleared both chambers and became law in less than three months. Democrats are already haggling over what should be included in the infrastructure plan, and how to pay for it.

Republicans, who have largely criticized Mr. Bidens agenda, are likely to object to any use of the tool, which would virtually cut them out of the process. Reconciliation also consumes a substantial amount of floor time, which could otherwise be used for approving administration nominees and judicial appointments.

There are more opportunities to run the obstacle course and risk all the dangers, but you still have to run the obstacle course, said Zach Moller, deputy director of the economic program at Third Way, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, and a former aide on the Senate Budget Committee. The process and the painfulness of budget reconciliation is still required to go through here.

Several Democrats have said they hope for bipartisan support for their initiatives, including Mr. Bidens infrastructure proposal. But taking a cue from the president, they have also begun to argue that they have support from Republican voters and local officials, even if Republican lawmakers in Washington have objected to the plan.

Some Republicans balked at Mr. Schumers parsing of budgetary law, saying it suggested that congressional Democrats had no genuine interest in negotiating the details of an infrastructure plan, let alone more politically charged issues like immigration reform.

It should be subjected to extensive hearings in both the House and the Senate, and not rammed through, Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said of the infrastructure package in an interview last week. But the attempt to expand the use of reconciliation, she said, seems to signal what direction they want to go in.

Go here to read the rest:

Democrats Win Crucial Tool to Enact Bidens Plans, Including Infrastructure - The New York Times