Category Archives: Democrat

Michigan and other key states went to the polls this week. Well have the latest in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Anthony Brooks, On Point's 2020 correspondent. (@anthonygbrooks)

Paul Egan, Lansing bureau chief at the Detroit Free Press. (@paulegan4)

Amy Radil, reporter covering politics, government and law enforcement for KUOW. (@AmyRadil)

Scott Clement, polling director for The Washington Post. (@sfcpoll)

Paul Egan's latest election 2020 coverage:

Amy Radil's latest election 2020 coverage:

The Washington Post: "Early exit polls from the 2020 Michigan Democratic primary and other contests" "Six states cast their votes in the Democratic presidential primary Tuesday. Michigan, one of the industrial midwestern states key to Trumps 2016 victory, offers the largest delegate haul.

"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) mounted a surprised victory over Hillary Clinton in Michigans presidential primary four years ago, and it will be critical again if he wants to halt former vice president Joe Bidens momentum following Super Tuesday.

"Michigan exit poll results did not include interviews with early voters, which were a significant share of the state's Democratic primary voters, but the results give a snapshot of which day-of voting blocs backed each candidate."

NPR: "Joe Biden Spent Years Embracing Michigan. Now He Hopes Voters Return The Favor" "With a shiny, city bus as backdrop, Vice President Joe Biden rolled up his shirtsleeves for a 2015 speech in Detroit.

"'Detroit isn't just an important city,' he told the crowd at an event celebrating the arrival of 80 new city buses. 'It's an iconic city.'

"As vice president, Joe Biden visited Detroit nearly a dozen times, more than President Obama. He was in Detroit again on Monday, this time campaigning for the White House before Michigan's Tuesday primary."

Politico: "Biden scrambles to make up ground with Latinos" "The morning after Joe Bidens Super Tuesday romp, one of his top House endorsers, California Rep. Tony Crdenas, called the campaign with an urgent plea: Fix the problem with Latino voters. Fast.

'Now that you have the resources, are you going to put them into the Latino voting community?' Cardenas said he asked a top Biden adviser. The answer was yes.

"Flush with a $22 million cash infusion in five days, the Biden campaign says its readying Latino-oriented 'six-figure' ad buys in the March 17 primary states in Florida, Arizona and Illinois in the hopes of killing off one of Bernie Sanders few mainstays of support. The campaign is hiring and deploying Latino organizers in Arizona and Florida, both swing states crucial to stopping President DonaldTrump. And its racking up endorsements from prominent elected leaders."

Read the rest here:

What's Next In The Race For The Democratic Presidential Nomination - WBUR

On Monday, after a historic selloff in the markets, President Trump appeared at the White House and teased a payroll tax cut. He said they would soon talk about various things that we're doing economically they'll be very major including, obviously, the payroll tax cut.

The idea landed with a thud among Capitol Hill Democrats whose support Trump would need to make it happen.

Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA), the Vice Chair of the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, noted Tuesday that the idea doesnt help people who have lost their jobs; and if they are making less than $25,000, the cut is not enough to really do anything.

Asked by the Hill if the idea was dead on arrival on Capitol Hill, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) said: I think so.

Andres Vinelli, the Vice President of Economic Policy at the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress, came on Yahoo Finances The Ticker to explain why the idea hasnt garnered much Democratic support.

I think the support will be lukewarm, he said. What we need now is something that is big, that is immediate and it targets the right people.

Trump has not shown many signs of changing his approach. In fact, he doubled down by pushing for an elimination of the payroll tax through the end of 2020. The president is fighting for a "temporary payroll tax cut holiday which I think he would prefer to last through the end of the year," director of the National Economic Council Larry Kudlow told reporters on Tuesday.

Vinelli notes that that idea will leave a lot of people who are very vulnerable out, and adds, I think that there are better solutions out there.

Beyer offered a fuller case against it:Part of the dilemma with the payroll tax cut is that if youve lost your job, or youre in the gig economy, or many other things, [then] youre not going to get anything. Or if youre with so many Americans making $25,000 or less, then it ends up being like $10 a week, he said.

Later in the day, Beyer went into self-quarantine after learning he had had contact with a friend who later tested positive for COVID-19.

Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D., OR) added in a statement that a payroll taxcutcan be an effective tool, but its not the best answer in this case. A payroll tax cut would do little to help workers without paid sick days or those who have lost shifts and tips.

A group focused on expanding Social Security benefits zeroed in on the costs of cutting the taxes which funds the program. Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, said in a statement that the idea is a Trojan Horse attack on our Social Security system, which will do nothing to meaningfully address the crisis at hand.

Asked about the loss of revenue to the federal government that a payroll tax holiday would entail, Kudlow said, you know, the payroll tax holiday is a bold move and this is a bold president.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and colleagues are reportedly drafting their own stimulus plan, which is unlikely to include a payroll tax cut.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Capitol Hill this week. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Pelosi recently argued that cutting payroll tax is too broad a measure and ideas should be focused on those actually impacted by COVID-19. Were not talking about massively saying were going to have family medical leave, were saying if you are affected by the coronavirus, you should get help, she said of the emerging Democratic plans on Monday.

The Democratic plans when they are announced will likely include economic measures focused on things like paid sick leave and enhanced unemployment insurance. In a statement Sunday, Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, the leader of Democrats in the Senate, said those measures would prioritize the health and safety of American workers and their families over corporate interests.

Story continues

Source: David Foster/Yahoo Finance

We need to guarantee that people can stay home and still receive a paycheck, not only to put money into people's pockets, but also to ensure that people do not show up at work while sick, says Vinelli.

Last week, Senate Democratsdid introduce a bill focused on sick leave. The bill would require employers to allow workers to build up a bank of paid sick leave and also provide 14 days immediately during any public health emergency like coronavirus.

A more ambitious idea would be some version of direct payments to Americans. Among the many things that we must consider to get the stimulus going again, direct payments will at least be part of that said Congressman Beyer.

Vinelli added that the IRS could cut the check for everyone very quick, that would be a cash infusion for households that need them very much and that's something that was done after the financial crisis and it was very effective.

A voice in favor of direct stimulushas been Jason Furman, who was chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers during the Obama administration. He he wrote on Friday in support of direct payments of $1,000 to every U.S. citizen or taxpaying U.S. resident.

As advocates of the idea like to note, President George W. Bush signed a bill during the financial crisis of 2008 that cut checks of $600 to most individual taxpayers.

Of course, the different ideas could eventually both be included in any bipartisan bill. Trump, for his part, tweeted on Tuesday, mocking Democratic questions about whether a deal will get done this week. He also sent around a video thanking just the Senate Republicans for the recent $8.3 billion spending bill that was was signed into law on Friday to fund the U.S. response to thecoronavirus outbreak.

The measure, of course, was also passed through the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives last week with a vote of 415-2.

Ben Werschkul is a producer for Yahoo Finance in Washington, DC.

Read more:

Washington debates a big coronavirus stimulus

Coronavirus response: Breaking down the $8.3 billion emergency spending bill Trump signed

Coronavirus outbreak could easily tip US into a recession: Goldman Sachs

Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance

Follow Yahoo Finance onTwitter,Facebook,Instagram,Flipboard,LinkedIn,YouTube, andreddit.

Read more here:

Coronavirus response: Why Democrats are lukewarm on the idea of a payroll tax cut - Yahoo Finance

In May 2019, in the days following his decision to run for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, Bullock said that he "was never going to run for the Senate ... I have great respect for the senators, but this is something that never really got me excited."In August, Bullock told CNN's Alisyn Camerota that a Senate bid was an "absolute no" for himIn December, Bullock reiterated his previous stance. "I said it before, I said it during, I said it when I got out. I am not running for Senate," he said.

"After hearing from Montanans and talking to Lisa and our kids, we decided now is no time to be on the sidelines, and that's why I'm running so we can make Washington work more like Montana," he said in a statement.

While there's no debate that Bullock's decision is a major boon for Senate Democrats hoping to win back the majority in the chamber this fall, it also occasions an obvious question: What changed his mind?

The answer to that question is, of course, not simple. Why people -- including politicians -- make the life decisions they make are often a mystery. It's what makes life so unpredictable and fascinating.

But there are a few clues as to why Bullock went from no-way, not-ever to "I'm running."

The second is a calculation all politicians make before leaping into another race: Can I win? While winning is never a guarantee, most ambitious pols -- and let's not forget Bullock ran for president, so he is definitely ambitious -- won't risk their political future on a race they don't think can be won.

Which brings us to Bullock and his change of heart. Put simply: If he did not believe the national political environment -- as well as the political environment in his home state -- hadn't moved into a place where he could beat Daines this fall, there is no chance he would run.

How did Bullock make that determination? My very strong supposition is that he was shown a bevy of private polls conducted for the Senate Democrats' campaign arm that showed him very much in the game against Daines and with Trump's numbers in the generally conservative state -- especially at the federal level -- not all that amazing.

But Bullock's decision sends a very clear signal about how Democrats are feeling about 2020, and it's this: Come on in, the water's fine!

Read more:

Here's how you know Democrats are feeling very good about their chances in November - CNN

WASHINGTONBeating out her rivals with the help of a little-known technicality, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) was named the Democratic Partys nominee for president Wednesday after the discovery of an obscure rule that grants the nomination to whoever wins 0.7% of the vote in Missouri. We werent expecting this, but after double-checking the partys rules, it appears we are obliged to select Tulsi Gabbard as our candidate in 2020, said Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez, shrugging his shoulders and pointing to a section of a crumbling, yellowed document that contains the esoteric bylaw. I know a lot of Democrats were probably wondering why she was still in the race. But last night, while cross-referencing an old rule book in preparation for the upcoming debate, we came across this forgotten section of our charter, and, well, it all checks out. I admit it was a pretty cunning strategy on her part. With 100% of precincts now reporting, it appears the congresswoman received exactly 0.7% of votes in the Missouri primary yesterday. And so the time has come for us to put aside our differences and unite behind the next president of the United States, Tulsi Gabbard. Perez went on to apologize on behalf of his entire party for not awarding the Democratic nomination for president to Sen. Furnifold McLendel Simmons (D-NC) in 1920.

Read more:

Tulsi Gabbard Named Democratic Nominee After Discovery Of Obscure Rule That Grants Nomination To Whoever Wins 0.7% Of The Vote In Missouri - The Onion

[Geoff Stellfox for Shaw Media]

Bill Thoman, the chair of the local Democratic party, said he considers Summers the only true Democrat in the race. In a rare move, the local party leadership voted last month to endorse Summers.

Summers stressed the job of the coroner isn't dependent on politics.

Talbot also said there was "absolutely nothing political" about the coroner's office. He focused his critiques of Summers on her experience.

He compared Summers' qualifications as a former nurse to "asking a painter to put a new motor in your car," while touting his experience as a police officer.

But Summers argued her nursing background is key to helping her understand the myriad medical records the coroner's office deals with, especially since about 80% of death cases are considered natural. She claimed, without evidence, that the county has always had a coroner with either a background in medicine or science.

"I have that ability," she said. "I understand the toxicology. I understand the drugs. I know all this stuff because it's second nature to me."

O'Neil also praised Summers' qualifications and is supporting her candidacy to succeed him.

"Laurie has the appropriate credentials," O'Neil said.

Read more from the original source:

Democratic primary race for Will County Coroner heats up - The Herald-News

The 116th Congress also demonstrated that political influence outside of Washington does not always translate into legislative victories, as progressives are promising.

Without question Ms. Ocasio-Cortezs influence on the Democratic Party also is striking in modern politics for a freshman House member. In her first few months in office she got normally skittish Democrats and some early presidential candidates to sign on to her Green New Deal (introduced with Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts), forced a national conversation about marginal tax rates and Medicare for All, helped tank a plan for Amazon to move to Queens, and catalyzed a vast rejection of corporate PAC money for incumbents who had just a year ago eschewed that plan as impractical at best, unilateral disarmament at worst.

But here was the reality for progressives: Medicare for All got little more than a hearing or two, while the House passed bill after bill pressing more incremental health care changes (but none of which the Republican-controlled Senate would even entertain). The Green New Deal had a messy if high-profile roll out, then fizzled. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez did not have even the modest legislative victories enjoyed by other freshman Democrats like Joseph Neguse of Colorado, Deb Haaland of New Mexico and Lauren Underwood of Illinois, who ran on getting health care bills on the floor.

What is more, many Democrats began to fret early on that the far left was going to do to them what the Tea Party had done to Republicans a few years back: Run them out of town, one primary at a time. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez previously suggested that Democrats who were not sufficiently loyal to an emergent brand of progressive politics should have others like her run against them in a primary. She is now suggesting that, exit polling be damned, Mr. Bidens latest string of successes is because of the strong-arming of corporate lobbyists, something Mr. Sanders has underscored by repeatedly calling Mr. Biden the establishment candidate.

But the results speak for themselves. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez threw her weight behind Cristina Tzintzn Ramirez in her Senate primary campaign in Texas to defeat the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committees chosen candidate, M.J. Hegar. Ms. Hegar ended up easily outpacing a crowded Democratic field.

There are some people who one dont really seem to understand the math of the majority making, said Representative Abigail Spanberger, a former intelligence officer, whose Richmond-area district had been held by Republicans for decades. Theres some people that just think that were out of touch and that if we just worked hard, more Democrats would come out of the woodwork, and so we should just try to say to all the things that excite all the Democrats. You can say that until youre blue in the face, but there are just not that many Democrats in my district.

Jennifer Steinhauer, a political reporter for The Times, is the author of the forthcoming The Firsts: The Inside Story of the Women Reshaping Congress.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Visit link:

Why Democrats Are Still Not the Party of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - The New York Times

Photo: Jessica Cisneros for Congress/Flickr

Jessica Cisneros came so close. But as the sound and fury of Super Tuesday faded to awhimper, it became obvious that she would not unseat Henry Cuellar. The conservative Democrat will instead represent Texass 28th Congressional District for another two years. Cisneros, meanwhile, promised supporters that her fight would continue. Theres every reason to believe it will: At 26 years old, she has plenty of time to hone her strategy for elections to come.

Cuellar may have won, but he doesnt have much to celebrate. His margin of victory over Cisneros, a newcomer who lacked his connections and the support of the partys elders, betrays vulnerability. The combined support of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Koch network, and the local oil and gas industry was barely enough to keep him in power. Two years from now, or four years from now whenever Cisneros or someone like her marshals the resources for another primary run the Cuellar coalition might be obsolete.

The fragility of Cuellars grasp on power has implications much bigger than Cuellar himself. It also indicts party leaders, who largely embraced Cuellar ahead of Tuesdays election. Though Cuellar has an A rating from the NRA and a poor record on climate change, and backs severe restrictions on abortion rights, Pelosi not only endorsed him but actively campaigned for him. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee instituted a blacklist designed to deter vendors and consultants from providing their services to insurgents like Cisneros. Pelosi and others worked against the labor movement, and major party allies like EMILYs List, all to keep Cuellar in a district that any Democrat would probably win.

But their political calculations may soon be out-of-date. By working against young candidates like Cisneros, even in safe Democratic districts, party leaders are working against a viable future for the party. Young voters are already worlds apart from Democrats like Cuellar. They want universal health care and colleges they can afford to attend; they want to raise children on a planet that isnt doomed. The generation gap that separates Democrats of Cisneross ilk fromthe partys more conservative Establishment has as much to do with ideology as it does with age. If the party concedes nothing to the young left, it will weaken itself.

Though the midterms sent young moderates like Abby Finkenauer of Iowa to Congress right alongside socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, young Democrats are much more likely than any other demographic to back Medicare for All and the Green New Deal both hallmarks of the Cisneros campaign. In a recent survey by Harris Poll, nearly half of all Millennials and members of Generation Z said theyd prefer to live in a socialist country. Sixty-seven percent said they supported the notion of tuition-free college; an even higher number, 73 percent, said they wanted universal health care. It isnt difficult to understand why young adults diverge so dramatically from their forebears. The trajectories of their adulthoods have been altered fundamentally by student-loan debt, a looming climate crisis, and medical costs they cant afford. Pelosi and others may believe theyre holding back the tide that by keeping moderates in their seats, they deflect damaging right-wing policies. To voters staring down the rest of their uncertain lives, the partys stratagems look a lot like cowardice.

A similar dynamic is playing out in the presidential primary. Youth turnout is still low, but when they do vote, young voters overwhelmingly prefer Bernie Sanders. Moderate Democrats, though, are coalescing around Biden. The party Establishments clear preference for Biden over Sanders, and Cuellar over Cisneros, stems from the same strategy and the same fear. It posits, to the persuadable, that politicians like Biden and Cuellar are just more electable, which makes them a sure defense against Trump. In Bidens case, the partys pundit-fueled obsession with electability probably helps explain why older voters prefer him by far to his democratic socialist alternative.

But circumstances have forced younger voters to adopt a much different definition of security. While the 78-year-old Sanders may seem like a liability to older voters, his policies and image as a fighter recommend him to the young. Hes a necessity, not a risk; his urgency isnt utopian, but realistic. Considered against the backdrop of a warming planet and an increasingly stratified economy, the Sanders platform doesnt look that radical at all. For the same reasons, candidates like Cisneros have also begun to look like inevitabilities. Their victories may be few at the moment, but organizations like Justice Democrats the group that recruited Cisneros, and Ocasio-Cortez too will keep fielding them.

Democrats dont necessarily have to worry about losing young people to the GOP; Republicans have a much more difficult time keeping young voters engaged. The real risk is alienation. The party might not turn young people to the right; it just might turn them off altogether. Its unwise to assume that young people who do not vote will at some point become old people who do. The alternative possibility that disillusioned youth will become disillusioned middle-aged people and eventually disillusioned seniors must rate consideration. Unless Democrats can find a way to stoke youth enthusiasm about their candidates and the electoral process in general, their long-term prospects are poor. They might defeat Trump, though its a dubious prospect if the frequently incoherent Biden is their nominee. Even if they manage to get Trump out of power, defeating one man is only half the battle. The presidents brand of far-right nationalism only amplifies mainstream conservative thinking. It will be with us for years. The party needs fighters, and it needs popular support, and it wont have either if it remains so dramatically out of step with the needs of the future.

Pelosi and friends should look at Henry Cuellar and bemoan the time and effort it took to keep him in power. They should look at Joe Biden and worry; 2016 is not such a distant memory. The party is skilled at mollifying the oldest and most conservative factions of its base. But what harm would it really do to let young people lead for once? The worst outcome is a more cohesive party, united in its commitment to legal abortion and green policy and universal health care that lives up to the name. The future might actually be worth living.

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

Continued here:

Jessica Cisneros Should Be the Future of Her Party - New York Magazine

More than one-fifth of all income for the top 1 percent of earners in America comes from capital gains, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office.

Its really not an issue of billionaires sit on piles of cash, of idle money that the government should take, said Gabriel Zucman, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley. Its really an issue of you have people who have capacity to pay a lot of taxes and the way to get them to pay more is by taxing capital.

The need for more tax revenue is clear to many Democrats who want to fund government programs meant to help the poor and the middle class, including universal child care, paid leave, early-childhood education and free college.

But the United States taxes income from capital gains at a lower rate than it taxes income from jobs. Orthodox free-market economists argue that comparatively lower taxes on capital gains stimulate investment, and conservatives warn that raising those taxes would hamper economic growth.

Right now, one of the biggest problems we have is low investment even with low interest rates, said Karl Smith, vice president for federal policy at the Tax Foundation in Washington, a think tank that tends to support lower taxes on businesses and capital gains. In general, taxing capital or productive assets is going to make that problem even worse.

Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders favor raising the tax rate for capital gains, such as profit on the sale of a stock or a business, to the same rate as taxes on labor income. Mr. Bidens increases would be smaller, and apply to fewer Americans, than Mr. Sanderss.

Currently, married taxpayers earning up to just under $80,000 a year pay no taxes on capital gains from assets held longer than a year. The top rate, for those earning just under $500,000 a year, is 23.8 percent, compared with a top rate of 37 percent for labor income.

Link:

How Democrats Would Raise Taxes on the Rich - The New York Times

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. (Alex Brandon / AP Photo)

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Keller, TexasOn the same night that President Trump invoked the specter of failing government schools in his State of the Union address, Texas Republican Giovanni Capriglione was working hard to establish his public school bona fides. Elected to the Texas House as part of the 2012 Tea Party wave, Capriglione reminded voters here in Keller, an affluent suburb of Fort Worth, that he was a product of public schools, his wife is too, and that his children attend them now. Grade by grade, he named his favorite teachers.Ad Policy

While Trump used his pulpit to make clear his administrations contempt for public schools, Capriglione wooed the voters he hopes will send him back to the state legislature with calls for more generous school funding, less standardized testing, and more rigorous oversight of charter schools.

Why such disparate messaging?

In a word: elections. In 2018 Texas Democrats flipped 12 formerly Republican legislative seats, half in the fast-growing region around Dallas and Fort Worth known as the Metroplex. While the Texas version of the blue wave was fueled in part by enthusiasm for the Senate candidacy of Beto ORourke, Democrats also ran hard against what they characterized as the GOPs antipathy toward public education. Voters ejected several school voucher advocates, while candidates who ran as supporters of public schools were rewarded. And while Trump is beloved among rural Texans, they are not fans of his signature education issue, education freedom, aka sending taxpayer funds to private and religious schools.Education Policy

Our rural communities are knit together by their public schools, says Pastor Charles Johnson, head of the public education advocacy group Pastors for Texas Children. Its why they tend to oppose privatization, no matter who is pushing it.

A similar dynamic is playing out in other key 2020 states. Even as Trump tries to lure back disaffected suburban moderates and hold on to his loyal rural supporters, his administration is peddling an education agenda that is increasingly under fire in states that are essential to his reelection bid. The deep divide between what such voters want for their schools and what Trump and state-level Republicans are offering presents an opportunity for Democrats to build on their 2018 gains, and perhaps even deny Trump a second term.

In Ohio, education freedom is on a collision course with two important Trump constituencies: rural and suburban voters. For months, lawmakers have been scrambling to contain the political fallout as the number of students who qualify for private school vouchers has suddenly ballooned. Ohios urban districts have felt the financial pain of pro-voucher policies for decades. Whats different about the latest expansion is that vouchers have suddenly emerged as a threat to suburban and rural school districts where Republicans hold sway.

Thanks to a handful of provisions slipped into the latest state budget by a Republican state senator, requirements for receiving vouchers were dramatically loosened. Students at private schools can now get taxpayer money even if theyve never attended a public school, and keep the benefit until they graduate. More budgetary hijinx resulted in a huge increase in the number of Ohio public schools labeled as underperforming, making their students eligible for a private school voucher. Some 1,200 schools are on the list for the 202021 school year, up from 500 last year, including schools in some of Ohios top suburban districts. What began as a program in a single city now effects 95 per cent of Ohio school districts, costing taxpayers nearly $350 million annually.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

Vouchers used to be a Cleveland problem, now theyre a suburban GOP problem, says Stephen Dyer, an education policy fellow at Innovation Ohio. We all know how important suburban women are to the GOP.

Vouchers are also increasingly a rural problem. In Wauseon, a northern Ohio farming community of 7,500, school leaders are now grappling with how to cover the cost of private school tuition for local students. But looming even larger than the brutal math of what programs to cut or which teachers to let go is the question of why the GOP seems so intent on undermining rural schools. Troy Armstrong, who became the superintendent of the Wauseon schools last year, grew up and graduated from the schools here, as did his kids. Armstrong worries about the ultimate aim of Ohios swelling voucher program. Is it to decimate public education so that private schools become the sole source of education? Thats what it feels like.

Fulton County, where Wauseon is located, went overwhelmingly for Trump back in 2016, and yet it is in communities like this where the GOPs education freedom agenda finds the least appeal. Public schools in rural Ohio function as community hubs, providing places to gather, sources of entertainment, and, most importantly, jobs. Were the largest employer. We employ more than any corporation, says Tom Perkins, the superintendent of the Northern Local School District in the village of Thornville. In a vast rural district like hisNorthern Local spans 172 square miles and is the major school system for conservative Perry CountyGOP talking points about breaking up the public school monopoly are a tough sell, not to mention a geographic impossibility. In talking with members of my community, theyre outraged, says Perkins. Private school vouchers represent a shift of money to a favored few at the expense of the many.

If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nations work.

When Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos traveled to Wisconsin in January to stump for Trump and promote school choice, their appearance was confined to a heavily orchestrated rally in the Capitol building in Madison. In the very parts of the state where their boss is most popular, the school vouchers at the center of his education agenda are increasingly controversial. In 2013, under Scott Walker, Wisconsin expanded its school voucher program across the state. Last year, Wisconsin taxpayers sent nearly $350 million to private religious schools.

While vouchers originated here as an urban experimentMilwaukees 30-year-old Parental Choice Program is the oldest such initiative in the countrytheir impact these days is increasingly felt in small rural communities. It affects them all, says Kim Kaukl, who heads up the Wisconsin Rural Schools Alliance. Even if they dont have a voucher school in their district, their piece of the pie is shrinking as Wisconsin sends more and more funding to private schools.

For rural districts that have never recovered from the deep cuts to education spending that were a hallmark of the Walker era, the diversion of funding to private religious schools is a costly burden. Under Wisconsins school funding model, money leaves as student enrollment declines. Communities that have hemorrhaged population as family farms withered and manufacturing jobs disappeared already strain to educate the students who remain. Rural voters are routinely asked to approve raises in property taxes just so schools can continue operating or to defray the cost of sending local students to religious schools.

In 2016, voters in Florence County voted to hike their own taxes for a major school improvement project, while also pulling the lever for Donald Trump by the largest margins of any Wisconsin county. While Florence may be a geographic outlierthe remote northeastern county borders Michigans Upper Peninsulathe phenomenon of conservative voters hiking their taxes to pay for schools is increasingly the norm. In recent years, the number of such appeals has skyrocketed, especially in rural communities. In 2018 alone, taxpayers agreed to pay an additional $2 billion in property taxes to support their local schools; of the measures that went before voters that year, nearly 90 percent were approved.

There is an obvious political paradox at play here. In the reddest reaches of Wisconsin, the same communities that are voting to hike their own taxes in order to save their local schools are electing and reelecting GOP lawmakers whove consistently embraced policies that weaken those schools. Kaukl lays at least part of the blame on what he calls politicking. Wisconsins extreme gerrymandering protects lawmakers from voter backlash, while controversial measures like vouchers are never voted on openly but instead quietly tucked into massive budget bills. Says Kaukl: Republicans know how unpopular these policies are. Its hard to get them to come to rural communities and talk about education because they know theyll get chewed up.

Across the border in Michigan, another key battleground state, rural schools are faring just as poorly. While Michigans constitution prohibits diverting public funds to private religious schools, years of funding cuts have taken a steep toll on rural districts. Nor can communities turn to local taxpayers for helpstate law largely prohibits it. When David Arsen, a professor of education policy at Michigan State University, mapped the impact of decades of funding cuts to local school districts, he found dramatic declines in rural, small-town and suburban Michigan, areas that are disproportionately represented by Republican legislators. These are places where schools are viewed as central to community life and yet the decline in funding has forced local schools to cut the services that students need and parents want, says Arsen.

In 2018, Democrats in Michigan made significant inroads into longtime Republican suburban strongholds by running as advocates for the states embattled public schools. One of the most dramatic upsets came in Wayne County, where Dayna Polehanki, a teacher whod never run for office before, defeated GOP challenger Laura Cox despite being outspent by more than two to one. Polehanki focused relentlessly on the poor state of K-12 education in Michigan, calling for a hike in school spending and the elimination of the profit motive from schools, topics about which her opponent had little to say. Cox, meanwhile, is now the head of the Republican Party in Michigan, tasked with ensuring that the state remains in the Trump column in 2020.

And yet unlike in Texas, where GOP lawmakers are scrambling to distance themselves from unpopular education policies, Michigan Republicans will find such a rebranding act hard to pull off. The DeVos familys outsize role in Michigan politics, including bankrolling the Republican Party, keeps the GOP tethered to a pro-privatization, antipublic school vision, whether or not it resonates with the partys constituents. In the 2018 election cycle alone, the extended DeVos clan ponied up more than $11 million in political donations to favored candidates and causes. Then theres the familys willingness to primary candidates who stray from school choice orthodoxy. Says Arsen: Republicans will lose a growing share of Michigan voters if the DeVos family continues to insist that the partys candidates endorse the familys education policy positions.

Yet if Democrats are aware that the roiling politics of education offer the party a potential opening in crucial 2020 states, they are keeping it awfully quiet. On the campaign trail and the debate stage, when education surfaces as an issue at all, the presidential contenders stick to bumper-sticker stuff: higher-pay for teachers, more funding for high-poverty schools, fewer high-stakes tests. Nor do the Democrats have much to say about the rural schools attended by one-quarter of American kids. Public education, as the would-be presidents define it, seems to be a city thing. And other than Betsy DeVos reliable role as party punching bag, the Democrats have directed relatively little energy towards distinguishing their vision from Trumps. Indeed far more ink has been spilled over the partys internecine dispute over charter schools, an issue that barely affects rural and suburban voters, than on the existential threats to public education in must-win states.

In order to capitalize on voter dissatisfaction with GOP education policies, Democrats will have to do more than malign Betsy DeVos. They will also have to draw a sharp distinction from recent Democratic party orthodoxy on public education. For the past three decades, Democrats have embraced the market-oriented thinking that is now reaching its logical conclusion in the form of education freedom. By making the rhetoric of individual choice and competition their own, Democrats have inadvertently eroded the idea of education as a public good, making its defense, and the case for higher spending on schools, that much more difficult. And yet, as voters from Texas to Wisconsin to Michigan have demonstrated, public education remains at the very core of Americans hopes for their children and their communities. Democrats would do well to listen to them.

See original here:

Trump's Education Policy Is an Opportunity for Democrats - The Nation

A federal judge on Thursday gave House Democrats one week to figure out how they want to move forward in their lawsuit to obtain President TrumpDonald John TrumpAs Biden surges, GOP Ukraine probe moves to the forefront Republicans, rooting for Sanders, see Biden wins as setback Trump says Biden Ukraine dealings will be a 'major' campaign issue MOREs tax returns from the administration.

Judge Trevor McFadden, a federal district court judge in Washington, D.C., appointed by Trump, held a hearing in the tax return case following a ruling in another major case that touched on some of the same legal questions.

McFadden's hearing came less than one week after a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a separate lawsuit ruled that House Democrats cannot sue to enforce a subpoena of former White House Counsel Don McGahn. The ruling said federal courts cant resolve disputes between the executive and legislative branches.

McFadden had put the tax return case on hold until a ruling was issued in the McGahn case.

House Democrats are seeking Trump's returns both under a subpoena from House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard NealRichard Edmund NealTrump officials pressed on economic response to coronavirus Mnuchin: Trump to prioritize infrastructure in any coronavirus stimulus package Seniors, businesses grapple with landmark retirement law MORE (D-Mass.) and through a provision under the federal tax code.

During Thursdays hearing, the Houses lawyers argued that the D.C. Circuit ruled incorrectly in the McGahn case and that they are planning to ask the full D.C. Circuit to rehear that case.

House lawyersalso said that, at a minimum, thepart of their lawsuit relying on the tax code provision could proceed.

McFadden said hes not inclined to handle the case on a piecemeal basis, and said that it would be of interest to him if the House wanted to file an amended complaint that just includes the claims relating to the tax-code provision.

The Houses lawyers said they need time to confer with their client about how they wanted to proceed on their subpoena-enforcement claim.

In the tax return case, the Trump administration is arguing the case should be dismissed because the federal courts cant take a side in the dispute.Lawyers for the administration argued the ruling in the McGahn case requires McFadden to dismiss the entirely of the Houses tax return lawsuit. The administration also argued that if the tax return case is put on hold while the full D.C. Circuit reviews the case, it should be stayed until the Supreme Court rules.

McFadden asked the Houses lawyers and the Trump administrations lawyers to submit a joint status report in one week.

The Ways and Means Committee had filed the tax return lawsuit against the Treasury Department and IRS in July, after the agencies rejected Neals requests and subpoenas for six years of Trumps federal tax filings and related IRS audit papers. In September, the administration and Trumps personal lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the House lacks standing to sue.

Democrats have said that the law is clear that they can obtain Trumps tax returns, because a section of the federal tax code states that the Treasury secretary shall furnish tax returns requested by the chairs of Congresss tax committees. They have said they want to see Trumps tax returns because they are considering legislative proposals and conducting oversight about how the IRS audits presidents.

But the administration argues that Democrats lack a legitimate legislative purpose for the tax returns. They argue that Democrats stated purpose for the documents is pretextual and their real reason for wanting the documents is to expose the tax information of a political rival.

Trump is the first president in decades who hasnt made any of his tax returns public. He has said he wont release them while hes under audit, but the IRS has said that audits dont prevent people from making public their own tax information.

House Democrats lawsuit against the administration is one of several lawsuits related to Trumps financial records. Later this month, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in cases in which Trumps personal lawyers have sued to block subpoenas for the presidents financial records that were issued by House Democrats and the Manhattan District Attorneys office to Trumps accounting firm and banks.

More:

Judge gives Democrats one week for next move in Trump tax return case | TheHill - The Hill