Monthly Archives: July 2021

WASHINGTON In a crucial moment for Democrats, party leaders are hunting for a sweet spot that would satisfy their rival moderate and progressive wings on legislation to finance President Joe Bidens multitrillion-dollar agenda of bolstering the economy and helping families.

With virtually no votes to spare and saber rattling by both Democratic factions, leaders are finding their search for middle ground arduous even though the presidents push for infrastructure projects and family-centered initiatives is his top domestic priority.

With Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, winning the spotlight this year for pulling his party rightward by issuing demands on crucial issues, plenty of centrists and liberals are now using that same playbook. In a procession of meetings with White House officials and congressional budget writers, progressives have insisted that the emerging measures be big and aggressive, while moderates want them to be far more modest.

Were all Joe Manchin right now, said House Budget Committee Chair John Yarmuth of Kentucky.

The leverage every Democrat has flows from simple arithmetic. Expecting unanimous Republican opposition to much of Bidens package, they need total unity in the 50-50 Senate plus Vice President Kamala Harris tie-breaking vote and can lose only a very few House votes.

With trillions in spending at their disposal, Democratic leaders have plenty of options for designing programs that appeal to lawmakers hometown interests to win votes. More broadly, however, the intraparty fight pits two ideologies against each other progressives eagerness to help needy families, moderates seeking to do so but with fiscal constraints and their differences are real.

Senate Budget Committee Chair Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, recently floated an enormous $6 trillion proposal for infrastructure, climate change, health care and other programs that many progressives love. It goes well beyond Bidens vision of spending roughly $4 trillion on similar projects. Manchin has said he wants to pare it back further, a view many moderate Democrats endorse but that progressives say would eviscerate the presidents agenda.

Sanders is now immersed in talks with his panels Democrats on finding a compromise on spending and offsetting revenues.

The party is hoping he can craft a budget resolution the first step in Congress creaky process for churning out spending and tax bills that Democrats can push through the Senate and House this month. Lawmakers would likely work on detailed bills actually providing the funds and revenue this fall.

Lawmakers, aides and lobbyists say Sanders is running into resistance from moderates and will be lucky to come close to even Bidens $4 trillion. And while moderates and progressives have generally refrained from sniping and publicly drawing lines in the sand, theyre not bashful about voicing their views.

Among centrists, Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Oregon, has said hell oppose his partys budget and subsequent progressive-backed legislation financing programs aimed at families, telling the Capitol Hill publication Roll Call that hes concerned about excessive spending. Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-New Jersey, a leader of the Houses bipartisan Problem Solvers group, calls Sanders $6 trillion very aggressive. And Rep. Brad Schneider, D-Illinois, a leader of the moderate New Democrat Coalition, said he wants to help families and businesses without building castles in the sky.

Progressives are just as assertive. To maintain leverage, theyre demanding that Congress not approve a bipartisan Senate compromise providing $1.2 trillion for roads, pipelines and other infrastructure projects until theres also a second bill providing additional money for health care, housing and other programs, which is unlikely to win GOP votes.

That strategy has won support from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, with Biden also favoring the two-track approach. But moderates anxious to notch an infrastructure win and less wedded to a huge, separate bill expanding family-centered programs are pushing back, saying they want Congress to pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill as soon as this month.

Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Florida, co-chair of House Democrats centrist Blue Dog Coalition, says she thinks there will be enough votes to quickly approve the infrastructure measure. And when you have the votes you should take the vote, she said.

Countering that, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Washington, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said dozens of her groups nearly 100 members say they wont vote for the bipartisan infrastructure bill unless the separate package of health care and other family-oriented programs also moves.

Our leverage is saying were not going to be able to pass a piece of legislation unless you do the other one for families, said Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minnesota, the progressive groups vote counter.

The progressive caucus has said it wants five priorities included in the legislation: health care, housing, child care and other family benefits, climate change and helping millions of immigrants become citizens.

Moderates have voiced general support for health care, family benefits and other progressive priorities. But some have suggested, often without detail, downsizing liberals costly proposals like expanding Medicare coverage to people as young as age 60. They cite concerns about higher prices that some say federal spending could ignite.

Theres this I word out there thats called inflation, said Rep. Lou Correa, D-California, a member of House Democrats Blue Dogs.

Besides setting spending and revenue targets, a budget will be make-or-break for Democrats because under congressional rules, it would let them prevent Republicans from using Senate filibusters to kill later legislation actually providing the money for Bidens plans. Filibusters, or endless procedural delays, take 60 votes to overcome, a nearly insurmountable obstacle in todays hyper-partisan Congress.

Democrats control the House 220-211 with four vacancies and can lose no more than four of their votes to pass bills. That number will shrink to just three after a Texas runoff late this month in which both remaining candidates are Republicans.

Everybody needs to advocate as clear as possible for their priorities, said Yarmuth, the House budget chair. But everybody ultimately has to vote for whatever comes up, or we get nothing.

Story by Alan Fram.

More articles from the BDN

Read the rest here:

In hunt for infrastructure deal, every Democrat has leverage - Bangor Daily News

The Senate's bipartisan infrastructuregang is expanding, with Sen. Jacky RosenJacklyn (Jacky) Sheryl RosenTime for Biden to issue executive order on antisemitism Senate passes resolution condemning recent rise in antisemitic attacks Progressives want to tighten screws beyond Manchin and Sinema MORE (D-Nev.) becomingits 22nd member.

Sen. Kyrsten SinemaKyrsten SinemaMcConnell vows 'hell of a fight' over Biden infrastructure plan The Hill's Morning Report - 2024 GOPers goal: Tread carefully, don't upset Trump Sinema emerges as Senate dealmaker amid progressive angst MORE's (D-Ariz.) indicated during an interview this week with Arizona radio station KTAR that the group, which she leads with GOP Sen. Rob PortmanRobert (Rob) Jones PortmanMcConnell vows 'hell of a fight' over Biden infrastructure plan Biden's high-wire political challenge: Deliver infrastructure and please the base The Hill's Morning Report - 2024 GOPers goal: Tread carefully, don't upset Trump MORE (Ohio), had gained a new member since mid-June, when 21 senators came out in support of the framework.

"We worked really hard ...to build a coalition that is half Democrat, half Republican. We now have 22 senators who are supporting this framework," Sinema said.

Rosen's office confirmed to The Hill that the Democratic senator, who is focused on thebroadband and airport components of the negotiations, had joined the group.

With Rosen joining the Senate gang isnow evenly split between 11 Democratic senators and 11 Republican senators.

In addition to Rosen, the House Problem Solvers Caucus also came out in support of the deal this week.

The core members of the Senate bipartisan group joined President BidenJoe BidenUS imposes air travel restriction to Belarus after arrest of opposition journalist TikTok names longtime Microsoft worker as top US lawyer Biden appeals for unity six months after Capitol riot MORE at the White House late last month to announce that they had reached a deal on a $1.2-trillion, over eight-year framework.

They are now working with the administration and a broader coalition of Senate colleagues to turn the framework into the legislation as they try to lock down the 60 votes needed for the bill to pass the Senate.

Sinema, during her interview with KTAR, said the bill focused on the "most dire needs" on infrastructure.

"We are working to craft this into legislation that is lean and effective," she said.

The group still faces hurdles to getting the bill to Biden's desk later this year.

Senate Majority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerPride Month concludes without Equality Act vote in Senate Republicans should hit the reset button on Biden infrastructure deal The world is no longer fit for Sept. 11 war authorizations MORE (D-N.Y.) wants to vote this month on both the bipartisan plan and a budget resolution that paves the way for a separate, larger Democratic-only infrastructureplan.

But the bipartisan plan is facing skepticism from both Democrats and Republicans outside of the negotiating group about some of the suggested ways to pay for the spending.

"If that's credibly paid for, as opposed to adding it to the debt, I think there's a way forward on that portion of it," Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellOn The Money: McConnell vows 'hell of a fight' over Biden infrastructure plan | Democrats raise concerns with bipartisan bill Overnight Health Care: White House signals new COVID-19 strategy as delta variant spreads | McConnell urges vaccinations | Maryland says all COVID-19 deaths last month were among unvaccinated McConnell vows 'hell of a fight' over Biden infrastructure plan MORE (R-Ky.) said in Kentucky this week. "Maybe we'll get there."

But McConnell also pledged a "hell of a fight" over the larger Democratic only bill, which is expected to be multiple trillions of dollars.

Senate Republicans can't prevent Democrats from passing a larger bill on their own if Schumer has unity from all of his members. But they've also sent warning signs over threats by Democrats, particularly in the House, to hold up the bipartisan deal until they are able to pass the Democratic-only bill.

"There is a process by which they could pass this without a single Republican. But we're going to make it hard for them. And there are a few Democrats left in rural American and some others who would like to be more in the political center who may find this offensive," McConnell added about the Democratic-only bill.

Updated at 2:30 p.m.

See original here:

Democrat Jacky Rosen becomes 22nd senator to back bipartisan infrastructure deal | TheHill - The Hill

Lucas Kunce is putting on a clinic for his fellow Democrats.

A political outsider, Kunce has embarked on a quixotic journey to become a U.S. senator from Missouri, running for the seat that will be vacated in 2022 by retiring Senator Roy Blunt. The guy started with virtually no name identification, record in office or blessing from the Democratic Party establishment. He's an ex-Marine with a fine rsum, but that's about it, on paper.

Even if Kunce were able to overcome all odds against more established politicians in the Democratic primary, he would certainly find himself a huge longshot when squared off against some better-known, slavish Trump devotee in Trump country. Suffice it to say Missouri is labeled "solid Republican" on every conventional political war map for 2022.

Despite all that, there is something that sets Lucas Kunce apart.

Catch up on Ray Hartmann's latest columns

Unlike any statewide Democrat in memory, Kunce has come out of the gate with fire in his eyes and a forceful style made for the moment of the digital age. He has a swagger, campaigning as if he's already won the Democratic primary. When he goes after Republicans vying to replace Blunt, he acts as if they had already won the GOP nomination.

Kunce calls disgraced ex-Governor Eric Greitens "a flat-out criminal who should be in prison." He describes vigilante lawyer Mark McCloskey as a "clown" and a "criminal" and "Mansion Man." Last month, Kunce posted a hilarious video a spot-on parody of Greitens' famous assault-rifle campaign ad of 2016 offering McCloskey free Marine-led firearms training if he'll only apologize to those Black Lives Matter protesters who he menaced last June. It went viral.

Kunce has unveiled a dramatically populist campaign, attacking "massive corporations and corrupt bureaucrats." He describes the national group where he has his day job the American Economic Liberties Project as "a nonprofit fighting large corporations who use their monopoly power to stick it to the middle class."

That's the sort of message that can resonate with everyday voters the Democrats have lost in droves for the past decade or two, especially in rural areas. And Kunce is willing to call out his own party's politicians, as well as the Republicans, for having become beholden to corporate money. He even includes Facebook while railing against the monopolists, presently a Republican talking point. The man is different.

It's not every day that you see a Missouri Democrat's Twitter feed referring to "weed" while demanding an end to the drug war. Or throwing down on behalf of someone as controversial as Olympic sensation Sha'Carri Richardson, who lost her spot in the upcoming Tokyo games over an insanely stupid drug test. Or crusading for a pardon for Kevin Strickland, the Black man "convicted by an all-white jury for a crime he didn't commit," as Kunce notes bluntly.

This is not the customary soundtrack of Missouri Democrats, who are more comfortable sticking to soft language about racial justice and paying homage to Juneteenth. Few prominent Democrats would touch lightning rods like Richardson and Strickland as Kunce did.

But guess what? Running to win as opposed to running not to lose isn't working out so badly for Kunce. Less than four months into the race, he's gaining support far beyond what would normally be expected from an unknown candidate.

Like it or not, the scoreboard that matters early in a big race is the one maintained by the Federal Election Commission that shows the quarterly campaign fundraising reports of the candidates. So far, Kunce is blowing it up.

Kunce reports that he raised some $630,000 with no corporate PAC money and with 99 percent of his more than 20,000 donors giving less than $200. That comes on the heels of a stunning first-quarter report showing he had received $280,000 in less than a month without holding a campaign event.

Topping $900,000 in less than four months is no small feat for a first-time candidate. The total amount is but a small fraction of what a Senate candidate would need to compete in Missouri, but it's the number of small donations that Kunce has been able to raise in such short order that has to get one's attention.

Kunce's populism might be popular. The fact that he could garner thousands of small-ticket donors without having held office or previously waged a major campaign defies expectations.

Now, before Kunce could test-drive his populism against an actual Republican foe, he would have to defeat his Democratic primary opposition. The leader now is former state Senator Scott Sifton of south St. Louis County. Sifton slightly outraised Kunce in the first quarter and has until July 15 to disclose his second-quarter results.

It's an interesting contrast, to put it mildly. Sifton was a highly respected state senator well liked among his colleagues and a lawyer widely regarded as one of the smartest members of the legislature. He'd be a fine U.S. senator.

But he's a classic example of a Democrat running to the soft center, adverse to taking risks. He's great on the issues, but not so much on the headlines.

If Sifton were the party's nominee, he'd be a dramatically better choice than any member of the tragic Republican field. But it's hard to see him breaking the Democrats' recent losing streak in big races without showing more fire.

There's a common misconception in Missouri politics that the state transformed into "deep red" almost overnight after having been dominated by statewide Democratic officeholders as recently as 2012. That's not true. The simple reality is that Democrats have over a period of many years stopped connecting with the very voters especially those blue-collar, middle-class and rural who constituted much of their base for many decades.

This started happening long before ex-President Voldemort came along. Let's not forget that he didn't have an ideological bone in his body. He won because he made that connection with people who felt they have been left behind by elites of both political parties, especially Democrats. This wasn't "Trumpism": It was a masterful exploitation of fear and grievance that only a world-class conman could pull off.

Everyday Missourians vote their emotions, not their ideas. The Democrats lost touch with them in the past few statewide election cycles because they forgot how to talk to them. Now, with Republicans poised to field a ghastly candidate next year, there's an opening that would not have existed against Blunt.

It's far too early to know if Democrats can pull an upset in this race, but any of the present GOP hopefuls looks far more beatable than Blunt would have been. For his part, Kunce must prove he can withstand the test of time.

But the one thing he has shown is that a Democrat can buck the culture war. For too long, the party's candidates have caricatured the elites so roundly resented in the heartland. Kunce's populist appeal offers a visceral connection along with a swagger and early on, it's working.

His party might want to pay attention.

Ray Hartmann founded the Riverfront Times in 1977. Contact him at rhartmann1952@gmail.com or catch him on Donnybrook at 7 p.m. on Thursdays on the Nine Network and St. Louis In the Know With Ray Hartmann from 9 to 11 p.m. Monday thru Friday on KTRS (550 AM).

Go here to see the original:

Hartmann: Finally, a Missouri Democrat Who Brings the Heat - Riverfront Times

Illinois Rep. Jess Garca (D) said Tuesday he will support a budget reconciliation package only if it includes provisions to grant a pathway to citizenship to a broad spectrum of the country's undocumented population.

Garca's position is notable because Democrats have a slim majority in the House and can afford only a few defections if they are to get a reconciliation package to President BidenJoe BidenUS imposes air travel restriction to Belarus after arrest of opposition journalist TikTok names longtime Microsoft worker as top US lawyer Biden appeals for unity six months after Capitol riot MORE's desk.

"A robust and equitable budget reconciliation deal must include a pathway to citizenship forimmigrants our country cant make a full recovery without it, and I cant support any deal thatleaves so many people in my district behind," said Garca in a statement.

"We must seize this historic opportunity to bring compassion and dignity to our immigration system and provide the certainty that comes with having the legal status that millions of immigrants and their families deserve," he added.

Although other Democrats have said they support including immigration provisions in the reconciliation package, Garca is the first to make an official statement drawing what will likely become a progressive red line for the upcoming bill.

The reconciliation bill will package Democratic economic priorities that were left off the bipartisan infrastructure bill that Biden negotiated with Republican senators.

It's expected to include a host of provisions that Democrats call "human infrastructure,"including child care, and the back-and-forth between progressives and moderates has so far beenabout the overall cost of the bill rather than its substantial content.

Progressive immigration advocates have been increasingly confident that their main ask essentially a legalization of millions of undocumented immigrants will be included in the bill.

Garca did not call for a blanket legalization, instead focusing on groups that have been included in other legislation,including beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, beneficiaries of the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program, farmworkers and undocumented immigrants deemed essential workers during the pandemic.

Such a move could provide legal status to anywhere between5 million and10 million people.

"For decades, I have heard the plight of family, friends, and people in my community from the Chicago region whose lives have been put on hold. We cannot wait any longer to fix our immigration system and we need to use any opportunity available to do so, including budget reconciliation for DACA youth, TPS holders, farmworkers, and other essential workers," said Garca.

Bills to legalize DACA beneficiaries, other undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as minors, TPS beneficiaries and farmworkers have already cleared the House with some bipartisan support.

And Democrats have made clear their supporttoinclude essential workers,such asmeat processing plant workers, in any legalization effort.

"This is crucial for thousands of undocumented essential workers I represent. They sacrificed themselves to keep this country running during the worst of the pandemic and frequently had no access to relief or medical assistance for fear of being deported. We owe it to them," said Garca.

Garca's positioning follows public calls in slightly more hushed tones by other progressives looking to include immigration provisions in a reconciliation effort.

Congressional Progressive Caucus Chairwoman Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalExclusive: Democrat Garca will not back reconciliation without immigration Progressives ramp up Medicare expansion push in Congress Court ruling sets up ever more bruising fight over tech MORE (D-Wash.) last week tweeted her list of priorities for the bill, including a pathway to citizenship, and Rep. Joaquin CastroJoaquin CastroExclusive: Democrat Garca will not back reconciliation without immigration House Democrats call on McCarthy to take 'immediate action' on Rep. Greene Texas walkout sets up epic battle over voting rights MORE (D-Texas) said immigration reform "should be included" in reconciliation.

But Garca took the next step, linking his support of the broad effort to inclusion of immigration provisions.

Immigration provisions are unlikely to be particularly expensive, especially comparedwith some of the other Democratic priorities in the bill, and most outside observers have noted they would have a positive economic impact.

But immigration has been a political sticking point for decades, and Democrats will need unanimous support in the Senate and can afford to drop only a handful of votes in the House to pass any reconciliation measure.

Republicans have vowed to make passage of reconciliation as politically painful as possible for Democrats, and the GOP is ready to attack a bill that liberalizes immigration.

Still, progressives and immigration advocates believe they have the clout to draw a red line and will make the case for the urgency to pass overdue immigration reform.

A reconciliation bill will likely not allow for the modification of underlying immigration laws but could allow Congress to grant benefits to undocumented immigrants, something that hasn't happened since 1986.

"This would potentially be the first meaningful legislative action on this matter in 35 years," said Garca.

Read more from the original source:

Exclusive: Democrat Garca will not back reconciliation without immigration | TheHill - The Hill