Category Archives: Democrat

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (left), and former President Donald Trump (right).Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via Getty Images

Former President Donald Trump says in a new book that he "might have" endorsed a Democrat in 2020.

Trump was referring to Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell's reelection bid in Kentucky.

Despite Kentucky being a reliably Republican state, Trump said McConnell only won because of him.

Former President Donald Trump grew so frustrated with Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky for not backing up his election lies that he suggested he might have supported the GOP senate leader's Democratic opponent, according to Jonathan Karl's forthcoming book.

Karl, the chief Washington correspondent for ABC News, sat down with Trump in March 2021 to interview him for the book.

"Trump absurdly claimed that the only reason McConnell had won reelection in solidly Republican Kentucky in 2020 was because he had endorsed him," Karl writes. "'In retrospect,' Trump told me about McConnell's reelection race, 'I might have endorsed the Democrat.'"

That Democrat, former Marine fighter pilot Amy McGrath, was mentioned by Trump several times in speeches he gave while in office, according to the factba.se database, which contains all of the former president's tweets and an extensive record of his public statements.

Trump called her an "extreme liberal" and part of the "radical Democrat mob" in speeches ahead of the 2018 midterms, back when McGrath was running for a Republican-held House seat.

Karl describes how Trump was "consumed with bitterness and resentment aimed almost entirely at fellow Republicans" during their interview, particularly with Senate Leader McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Follow this link:

Trump suggested he should've endorsed a Democrat over McConnell in Kentucky in 2020: book - Yahoo News

If Democrats don't bend to their funding conditions, Republican leaders say they arent afraid of the ultimate fallback, a so-called "continuing resolution" or CR that drags out the same spending levels for the 10 months left in the budget year.

Well walk away from the bill, and we'll just go with a CR. We're not going to do it," Rep. Ken Calvert of California, the ranking Republican on the Houses defense funding panel, said about Democrats digging in on their liberal funding goals.

Democrats dont need the other partys help to advance the $1.75 trillion climate action and safety net spending package they are working to pass. Government funding bills, however, need 60 votes in the Senate. And Republicans could benefit from a monthslong standoff on the topic, which would hamstring Democrats attempts to increase non-defense spending.

As inflation poses a fresh threat to President Joe Biden's sagging approval ratings, Republicans are seeking to brand themselves as cutting spending to tame ballooning prices for consumer goods even though the national debt surged by more than $7 trillion during Trumps presidency.

"It's a shameless approach that they've taken," Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said about GOP leaders' refusal to negotiate on a longer-term spending bill unless Democrats acquiesce on every controversial policy before negotiations can begin.

"There are a number of Republicans who believe that it's important to fund the priorities of the federal government, including the defense priorities. But I know there's an ongoing discussion in their caucus," added Van Hollen, who chairs the Senate spending panel that funds the Treasury Department and the IRS.

The GOP has adopted a heads I win, tails you lose attitude with another shutdown deadline in less than three weeks. If Democrats don't buckle to a slew of conservative demands before spending negotiations even begin, Republicans wont engage in dealmaking at all, GOP leaders say. The minority party has demanded that Democrats agree up-front to status-quo spending constraints, like the longtime ban on using federal funding for abortion.

Falling back on a CR that extends current funding levels would mean flat government spending and the preservation of funding constraints Trump signed into law almost a year ago, blocking Democrats who've been eager to revamp government budgets since they took back the majority.

Under a long-term CR, "what you end up with is Donald Trumps last negotiated budget, when he was president and we had the Senate. I would consider that a pretty egregious Democratic failure, said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), his partys top appropriator on the spending panel that handles the largest pot of non-defense funding.

Senate Appropriations Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is taking the GOP threat of a year-long funding patch seriously, according to a committee aide, who said Republicans seem adamant about leaving more cash for the military on the table in order to stick Democrats with Trump-era funding levels for domestic programs. Leahy blasted Republicans on the Senate floor this month, saying GOP leaders seemed determined to thwart President Joe Bidens agenda.

The White House turned up pressure on Friday for a government funding deal, warning that a year-long stopgap would seriously hurt the country by hampering Covid vaccine research, delaying military construction projects and jeopardizing food safety.

A full year of static funding would sting for all the GOP lawmakers seeking a boost in defense spending, while undercutting the military and all the other federal agencies that have been lurching through the budget year without funding certainty.

The truth is, if you take a look at the challenges that are out there with China right now and Russia, this budget needs to go, warned Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), who chairs the appropriations subcommittee that funds the Pentagon.

Democrats have already debuted all 12 of their annual spending bills in both chambers and passed most of those bills in the House over the summer. House Appropriations Chair Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said now "we need our Republican counterparts to respond with their own proposal."

Top appropriators in both chambers have no meetings on the books to continue bipartisan negotiations, according to aides. Their first confab broke up last week, with both sides issuing warring statements.

The deadlock could complicate Democrats efforts to retain their House and Senate majorities in next years midterm elections. Even if the two parties eventually strike a deal to boost federal spending before time runs out next September, a string of short-term funding punts would feed into Republican criticism that Democrats cant get anything done on time.

I dont get the sense when it comes to keeping the trains running on time they are particularly adept at that, said Senate Minority Whip John Thune. Its just sort of management by chaos. Theres no real rhyme or reason to it. They keep putting out deadlines which end up not being met."

Government funding negotiations have taken a backseat to the jam-packed legislative to-do list, including passage of Demcorats' $1.75 trillion social spending bill and a continued standoff over lifting the debt ceiling. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), the top Republican on the Transportation-HUD spending panel, said real negotiations on a funding deal "have yet to start."

A bipartisan Senate framework for striking a funding accord isnt in play this year, exposing the gaping distance between both parties. The Senates top Republican appropriator, Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, insists Democrats need to resurrect the so-called Shelby-Leahy agreement the Republican devised in 2018 with his counterpart across the aisle. Under that deal, both parties agreed to forgo controversial policies lawmakers like to call poison-pill riders.

But sticking points abound. Republican appropriators list more than 30 items they say Democrats must add or nix from their spending bills before GOP leaders will enter into funding negotiations. That includes dropping wage requirements for projects funded with federal cash and ensuring the Guantanamo Bay terrorist-holding site remains open. The party also wants to continue federal funding for abstinence education programs that encourage people to refrain from non-marital sexual activity.

Republicans want the Biden administration to spend nearly $2 billion to keep building the border wall, rather than sending that cash back to the Treasury Department, and they want to kill environmental efforts, such as allowing new emissions regulations and funding a Civilian Climate Corps.

The question is, will we kick the can to January, February or March?" Shelby said. "And then come March, when we havent done anything, will we kick it to July and then September?

Marianne LeVine contributed to this report.

Excerpt from:

GOP weighs trapping Democrats in Trumps budget - POLITICO

The House may soon vote on Democrats $1.75 trillion budget reconciliation bill, with provisions to shield undocumented immigrants living in the US from deportation and relieve long visa backlogs.

But like many of the immigration proposals from the last few decades, these new, critical immigration fixes appear unlikely to actually become law. So why is this latest round of immigration reform proposals probably doomed? Two reasons: because of the structure of the Senate and because, on immigration, identity issues have replaced policy.

The American public has never been more supportive of immigration, with a third saying that it should be increased. In 1986, the last time Congress passed a major immigration reform bill, only 7 percent of Americans supported increasing immigration levels. And narrower reforms, such as expanded protections for undocumented people already in the US, have been found to have majority support.

But despite that growth in public support, the House and Senate havent been able to reach bipartisan agreement on immigration in decades. Though comprehensive immigration reform bills passed one chamber in 2007 and 2013, they ultimately failed in the other. And while the House has passed bipartisan legislation addressing narrower immigration issues over the last couple of years, those bills have yet to gain traction in the Senate.

This has led to a Democratic insistence on trying to use the budget reconciliation process to address immigration, which would bypass the need for Republican support. So far, those efforts have failed. But Democrats havent given up on it yet.

As part of their social and climate spending package, known as the Build Back Better Act (BBB), Democrats initially sought to create a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants living in the US. That plan was rejected by the Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, who is tasked with determining what can and cannot be passed via budget reconciliation.

Reconciliation allows bills to pass the Senate with a simple majority which Democrats have by one vote but for a provision to be included in a reconciliation package, it must have a more than incidental impact on the budget. A pathway to citizenship, MacDonough said, would be a tremendous and enduring policy change that dwarfs its budgetary impact. Democrats then proposed giving people who entered the US illegally prior to 2010 a pathway to green cards. MacDonough also nixed this plan.

This has led to Democrats plan C. Under the latest draft of the bill, undocumented immigrants would be given temporary protection from deportation through what is called parole for a period of five years. Those who arrived in the US prior to 2011 numbering an estimated 7 million could apply for five-year, renewable employment authorization.

The bill would also recover millions of green cards that went unused in the years since 1992. Under current law, any allotted green cards not issued by the end of the year become unavailable for the following year. In 2021, the US failed to issue some 80,000 green cards due to processing delays, and those cards have now gone to waste.

The bill also allows some people who have been waiting to be issued a green card for at least two years to pay additional fees to bypass certain annual and per-country limitations and become permanent residents years, if not decades, sooner than they would have otherwise. And the bill preserves green cards for Diversity Visa winners from countries with low levels of immigration to the US who were prevented from entering the country on account of Trump-era travel bans and the pandemic.

Those provisions, though short of desperately needed structural reform to the immigration system, would provide long-awaited assurance for many undocumented immigrants who have put down roots in the US and more opportunities for legal immigration at a time when the country could use more foreign workers. The provisions are also broadly popular: A recent poll from Data for Progress found that 75 percent of voters, including a majority of Republicans, back them.

Nevertheless, they may be on the chopping block.

In the House, Reps. Jesus Chuy Garcia, Adriano Espaillat, and Lou Correa have pushed for immigration reforms to be included in the reconciliation package. But even if they are ultimately successful, the provisions face two significant obstacles in the Senate: key moderates and the parliamentarian.

Moderate Sen. Kyrsten Sinema announced last week that she supported the current provisions, but there is no word yet from Sen. Joe Manchin, who has expressed skepticism about addressing immigration in the bill. As Senate Democrats need every vote in their caucus, should Manchin refuse to back the provisions, theyd be effectively dead.

MacDonough has also yet to weigh in on the latest plan. But given that she twice rejected Democrats previous immigration proposals, she may do so again. Explaining why she rejected Democrats path to citizenship proposal in September, MacDonough wrote that the impact of the legislation far outweighed its budgetary consequences, making it inappropriate to include in a reconciliation bill.

It is by any standard a broad, new immigration policy, she said. The reasons that people risk their lives to come to this country to escape religious and political persecution, famine, war, unspeakable violence, and lack of opportunity in their home countries cannot be measured in federal dollars.

She also asserted that, if she were to allow Democrats to pass the measure through reconciliation, that might be used as a precedent to justify revoking any immigrants legal status in future reconciliation bills.

Proponents of including immigration in reconciliation have asserted that MacDonough might take a different tack when it comes to plan C, in part because it doesnt create any new, permanent legal protections that werent previously authorized by Congress. But her September opinion suggests that she opposes any use of reconciliation that has far-reaching consequences for immigrants.

No one can be categorically sure about what shes going to do. But theres enough in her opinion to suggest that she will think this was too big a reach in reconciliation, said Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.

Despite calls to overrule or even fire the parliamentarian, Democrats have made it clear they plan to abide by her ruling. As Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez said in a September press call, The parliamentarian is the final word of what is and not permitted under the rules.

These barriers mean immigration reform seems to be proving elusive once again. Experts say thats because immigration has shifted from a matter of policy to a matter of identity, and that as this shift was happening, the way Congress functions changed drastically.

Chishti said that the immigration debate previously used to be principally focused on ideas: Is immigration good for the country or not? What kind of immigration is good for the country high-skilled, low-skilled? Do we need more finance people or more nurses?

And there used to be immigration proponents and skeptics in both parties. For instance, labor unions used to advocate for restrictionist immigration policies, though that shifted in the 2000s. Business-minded Republicans recognized the economic benefits of immigration. Now, the debate is more tied up in identity. It has also grown in electoral importance, with voters ranking it the third most important issue facing the country after the coronavirus and the economy in a Harvard CAPS-Harris poll earlier this year.

Immigration is all about culture and race. It is about peoples perception of how immigration is changing our country, Chishti said. Its much more emotional.

What has also changed is Congresss reliance on the filibuster. During the era in which the 1986 bill was passed, you could count on one hand the number of times the filibuster was invoked, Chishti said. Now, if a majority in the Senate doesnt support legislation, it doesnt even get considered.

That makes it hard, but perhaps not impossible, to build consensus around immigration.

Should their efforts to include immigration in the reconciliation bill fail, Democrats might not have another chance to pursue their policy priorities until after next years midterms and thats assuming they maintain control of both chambers of Congress, a scenario thats very much in doubt. A Republican Congress may not be interested in immigration reform at all, especially if they intend to use immigration as an electoral weapon against the Biden administration and the Democratic party.

Regardless of who controls Congress in 2023, there might be room for compromise on narrower reforms to the legal immigration system that relate to the economy, according to Theresa Cardinal Brown, managing director of immigration and cross-border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

A Bipartisan Policy Center-Morning Consult poll conducted in May found that, across the political spectrum, people were more likely to be willing to compromise on the issues of providing visas for immigrants supporting the US economy where companies cannot find US workers and providing visas for immigrants investing in research and innovation for future growth of the US economy.

While those issues dont represent the top priorities of either party on immigration, addressing them might have important corollary impacts. Creating new legal pathways for foreign workers might mitigate unauthorized immigration at the southern border and also open opportunities for undocumented immigrants already living in the US to get legal status.

If we legalize everybody in the country tomorrow, we still have the same system in place that made them become undocumented, Cardinal Brown said. What do we do with the next person? Unless we fix our legal immigration system, well continue to be in that position.

Go here to see the original:

Immigration fixes may not survive in Democrats budget reconciliation bill - Vox.com

Senator Raphael Warnock is the symbol of a new southern Democratic Party. Photo: Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

This is very much a back-to-the-future moment in American politics. Crime, inflation, school-curriculum wars, and even Red-baiting are in the news again and making appearances in Republican political ads. But as Perry Bacon Jr. argues in a provocative column on white appeasement politics, another familiar theme underlies a lot of the newly aggressive GOP messaging: white racial grievances. Bacon fears that defensive Democrats, panicked about their low and sinking electoral performances among certain categories of white voters (e.g., culturally conservative and non-college-educated ones) may be tempted to distance themselves from their expanding non-white voting bases and go back to the old southern Democratic strategy: expecting minority voters to loyally back centrist white candidates as far better than the GOP alternatives.

Fearing that candidates of color will alienate white swing voters is an ancient impulse. Two practical objections can be made to it. The first is that political parties that refuse to represent loyal constituencies on the ballot may soon find themselves losing some of their votes. This is a particularly serious threat given signs in 2020 and 2021 of softening enthusiasm for the Democratic Party among Black and especially Latino voters. The second is that appeasing white voters (as Bacon puts it) by running candidates who look and sound like them doesnt really seem to work very well:

The Virginia race is instructive here. Democrats nominated McAuliffe over several other candidates in the Democratic primary, including two Black women. During his general election campaign, McAuliffereversedhis previous support for a key plank of police reform getting rid of qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that limits civil suits against officers. So Virginia Democrats took steps right out of the White appeasement playbook run a White male candidate, move right on racial issues and lost.

Now its probably not fair to assume Virginia Democrats nominated McAuliffe primarily because he was white or because he was willing to hedge a bit on the commitments to racial justice that have been so central to Democratic governance in the commonwealth since the party won trifecta control in 2019. Hes a former governor with universal name ID, unparalleled fundraising prowess, and a solid history of support from and work for non-white Democrats. But the question remains in Virginia and elsewhere: If you are going to lose the votes of racially resentful white voters anyway, why not begin to build the coalition of a more demographically diverse future with candidates who finally offer non-white voters better representation? At some point, the kind of backdoor arrangement between white Democratic leaders and non-white followers stops being prudent and starts being actively offensive.

Interestingly enough, the transition to a new model for Democratic success has progressed more in parts of the South where white racial backlash is a constant reality, as I noted in 2018:

Until very recently, the Democratic constituency of the South was an uneasy coalition of disgruntled, conservative white voters perpetually on the brink of defection and loyal Black voters who felt unappreciated and underrepresented. At different paces in different states but all throughout the region, a new suburban-minority coalition is emerging. It may never achieve majority status in areas that are too white or too rural to sustain it. But it is showing great promise in enough states to make the Souths political future an open question for the first time in this millennium.

Notably, Black 2018 gubernatorial candidates Stacey Abrams of Georgia and Andrew Gillum of Florida improved on the performance of their white centrist predecessors, though both fell short by heartbreaking (and in Abramss case, controversial) margins. In 2020, Black Senate candidate Jaime Harrison (now the DNC chairman) threw a big scare into South Carolinas Lindsey Graham. A couple of months later, these near victories for Black southern Democrats culminated in the election of Raphael Warnock in a Senate runoff in Georgia. This was a development that would have baffled the old (and in some quarters, still reigning) conventional wisdom about race and politics in the former Confederacy.

In 2022, we will likely see a return of the kind of savage contest between Abrams and Republican Brian Kemp in Georgia, which could pose a new test as to whether white racial resentments are truly on the rise. Warnock himself will face the particular challenge of being opposed by a Black Republican celebrity, football legend and Trump friend Herschel Walker, who will likely campaign on election integrity themes designed to arouse racist conspiracy theories about non-white voters.

Whatever happens in these races, its precisely the wrong time for Democrats to abandon their new commitment to a more reciprocal relationship with their base in pursuit of vanishingly small swing-voter categories that could be unreachable. If they dont panic and keep making progress, Democrats still may not escape the historic pattern of midterm losses by the presidents party. But they can build a foundation for a united and growing party in the very near future.

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

The rest is here:

Democrats Shouldnt Run Away From Their Non-White Party Base - New York Magazine

To the Editor:

Re Face Reality, Democrats (editorial, Nov. 5):

It is perilous to ignore political reality. What is questionable is The Timess description of that reality.

Polls consistently show that a majority of Americans (including many Republicans) support many of Build Back Betters initiatives: lower prescription drug prices, support for child care and early childhood education, and more. Even more consistently, polls make it clear that large majorities want the people and big businesses that make the most money to pay their fair share of taxes which would go a long way toward paying for the programs Americans want.

Calling this a sharp leftward push is mistaken, and focusing on the old boogeymen of costs and growing the government is an anachronistic analysis.

Joe Biden was elected in part to end Donald Trumps war on our government. His promise was to make government work for Americans, not to make it smaller. The largest part of Democrats peril is their failure to do that largely the fault of moderates. If Democrats cant make government work, they deserve the consequences. Unfortunately, the nation does not.

Gail GoldeyHarrison, N.Y.

To the Editor:

I certainly hope that this editorial will get the attention of Democratic members of Congress!

I am a liberal Democrat who decries the party infighting and obstructionism. These are not normal times, where we can have arcane political arguments about the fine points of policy. This is now Trump world an ex-president who actually tried to foment a coup, supported and enabled by his Republican Party.

So while factions in my party are being intransigent, they are also making the president look weak and ineffective and reminding voters that we can be chaotic, too ergo our recent electoral losses.

Face reality is right! Either coalesce and compromise and do some great things for the American people, or have the G.O.P. take over Congress and re-elect Donald Trump as president, which will cause us to fail as a country.

Carol KrainesDeerfield, Ill.

To the Editor:

Your editorial gets it exactly wrong.

You call for the Democrats to moderate in the face of the electorates lurch toward the angry and disaffected right. The problem is that our society is broken. People are angry, people are disaffected. The progressives are the ones speaking to these people, with salvos against the destruction of the working class and obscene levels of inequality. Add in the energy of the young and engaged citizens who want to prevent the destruction of our planet.

The progressives among us are our only hope to lead our country with a mandate of the majority.

Mark KnobilPittsburgh

To the Editor:

The irony is overwhelming. The advice the editorial page gives to the Democratic Party is to ignore the Times editorial page. This is certainly excellent advice, and had the Democratic Party and the Biden administration followed it, the recent electoral losses might well have been smaller. Nonetheless, it leaves the reader puzzled as to how to apply this advice to the endless stream of progressive editorials that are certain to follow.

Jonathan BlankNew York

To the Editor:

I respectfully disagree with your analysis of the setbacks suffered by the Democratic Party in the recent elections. You give our divided citizenry too much credit. Ask the ordinary voter what he knows not thinks about matters like inflation, the state of the pandemic, the teaching of critical race theory, etc., and I am pretty sure you will come up with very little. We voters are vocal about what we think, even if we dont know much about the subject at hand.

Democrats, notably President Biden, refuse to admit that trying to reason with a party that only offers opposition is futile. The ideal of uniting the country is lofty but currently unrealistic. The G.O.P. over a long period has mastered the art of short, emotionally loaded phrases to manipulate its constituents and the unwary.

The media are being too quick to judge a presidency that is not yet a year old. Disappointing.

Norma GausterAvon, Conn.

To the Editor:

Re Rodgers Sees Covid Rules as Senseless (Sports, Nov. 6):

Aaron Rodgerss response is taken right from the former presidents playbook, which is increasingly becoming a template for high-profile people who mess up. The parallels are uncanny.

Lets be clear. While many folks are angry that Rodgers, the Green Bay Packers star quarterback, isnt vaccinated, the real issue here is that he knowingly broke the rules. And doesnt think he should be held accountable.

Rather than step up, Rodgers acted indignant, and tried to confuse the issue, provide alternative facts, play down the implications of his actions, highlight his critical thinking, and dare the powers that be to fully hold him accountable. This is the stable genius approach. Hes so principled about this issue that he could express his true beliefs only after getting caught.

This isnt about the woke mob and cancel culture, as he claims. Its about not being a jerk. And not thinking youre above the rules. And accountability.

Its quaint to think about the days when at least some people in leadership positions actually apologized and took responsibility for their misdeeds. Today, too many people instead try to shift the goal posts, just like Rodgers.

John DudzinskyBrooklyn

To the Editor:

Re Desperation at Abbey Gate: Americas Final Days in Afghanistan (front page, Nov. 8):

The valor of the Marines, the terror of the Afghans, the disastrous denouement of the war. How can anyone read this story and not be moved? The human anguish and the unimaginable waste of these international conflicts are powerful lessons that never seemed to be learned by those who cause them.

Keith W. HallRaleigh, N.C.

See the original post:

Opinion | Should the Democrats Be Less Progressive? - The New York Times

Buttigieg: New $1T infrastructure plan 'a big deal'

U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg highlights elements of the new $1 trillion infrastructure deal, describing it as "a big deal." He said the infrastructure bill "couldn't come at a more urgent time." (Nov. 8)

AP

WASHINGTON A bloc of six House Democrats voted against a $1.2 trillionbipartisan infrastructure package last week,breaking with the rest of their party on a major priority ofPresident JoeBiden that is key to his economic agenda.

Their main reason for the down vote: They wanted to pass the bill with its counterpart, a multi-trillion-dollar spending deal called the Build Back Better Act that is still being negotiated in Congress.

While the infrastructure package focuses on repairing the nation'sroads and bridges and expanding broadband internet,the Build Back Better Act includes proposals to expand social safety net programs and climate change initiatives. The $1.85 trillion package is what progressives have been pushing for months. They've argued the two bills should be voted on in tandem,but the House didn't take up theBuild Back Better bill Friday because it's still being negotiated.

More: What's in the new infrastructure bill? Lawmakers pass massive spending package.

With Democrats holding a slim majority in the House, the six progressive Democrats would have been enough to sink the infrastructure bill. But13 House Republicans ended up voting for the plan, giving it enough yes votes to pass.

Heres what each progressive Democrat had to say about their vote against the bipartisan infrastructure bill:

Bowman, who represents the northern Bronx and parts of Westchester County, said he did not vote for the infrastructure bill because it was not joined with the Build Back Better Act, according to a statement on Twitter.

Bowman said the infrastructure bill does not address other crises the country is facing including child care, paid leave, housing, prescription drug costs and the climate crisis.

He added that the infrastructure bill alone does not have the policies needed to address these issues.

We were asked to vote only on physical infrastructure at the last hour and to delay the needs and suffering of our constituents with the weakest assurance that the original agreement would be kept, he said. The agreement was broken.

Bowman said his Republican colleagues moved the goalpost after asking for an analysis on the cost ofthe Build Back Better Act.He said he and his Democraticcolleagues made it clear that they would vote for both the Build Back Better Act and the infrastructure bill at the same time.

Bowman previously expressed concerns with the infrastructure bill after the Senate passed the measure in August, saying it does not go far enough to address key crises the country is facing.

A true infrastructure investment must include transforming our economy to handle the climate crisis, supporting care workers, reforming SSI, making child care universal, rebuilding our crumbling public schools and much more, he said.

Bush, who represents St. Louis,tweeted ahead of the vote on the infrastructure bill about the need for both pieces of legislation, later adding she would not accept anything less than the presidents full agenda.

When I was sworn in, I promised to do the absolute most for everyone in St. Louis, starting with those that have the least, she said in a statementfollowing the vote. I have been abundantly clear in my position from day one of these negotiations: St. Louis deserves the presidents entire agenda.

More: US infrastructure spending: Charts show where billions of dollars would go

According to Bush, a vote in favor of the bipartisan infrastructure bill would have jeopardized our leverage to improve the livelihood of our health care workers, our children, our caregivers, our seniors and the future of our environment.

Bush said in September she would not back the infrastructure bill without the Build Back Better Act.

Those bills have to go together. Reconciliation has to happen. Build Back Better has to happen in the House and the Senate before we will vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, she told MSNBC.

Ocasio-Cortez has been critical of passing the infrastructure bill without the Build Back Better Act.

She took toInstagram liveto explain her reasoning for voting no,saying one of her main concerns with solely passingthe infrastructure bill was that the legislation locked in increases to climate emissions.

When it comes to infrastructure, we need to address the climate crisis, she said.

Ocasio-Cortez, who represents parts of Queens and the Bronx,said she was willing to vote for the infrastructure bill if it was paired with the Build Back Better Act, describing how unprecedented climate investments in the infrastructure bill have been linked to other policies in the Build Back Better Act.

Without passing the Build Back Better Act, she said many of these provisions do not get unlocked.

I cannot vote to increase our emissions without a commitment to draw them down, she said.

Ocasio-Cortez said she thinks the Build Back Better Act will be passed, but is not sure if it will be recognizable when compared to its latest version.

We can and should message (the bipartisan infrastructure bill) as a step, but messaging it as a solution alone is going to get us in trouble, she tweeted. BBB contains the majority of the presidents agenda. We must keep going and ensure the promises are delivered.

Following the vote, Omar released a statement giving her reasons for voting no on the bipartisan infrastructure bill. She cited Minnesotas housing shortage and rapidly rising temperatures as some of the reasons she is pushing for the Build Back Better Acts promises of affordable housing and climate crisis solutions.

More: 'A monumental step forward': Biden hails House passage of $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill

Omar represents Minnesotas 5th Congressional District, including Minneapolis and its surrounding suburbs. Originally sworn into office in 2019, Omar is the first African refugee to become a member of Congress, the first woman of color to represent Minnesota and one of the first two Muslim-American women elected to Congress.

My community cannot wait any longer for these much-needed investments that will be delivered through the Build Back Better Act, Omar said in the statement on Friday. I cannot in good conscience support the infrastructure bill without voting on the Presidents transformative agenda first.

In a statement released on Saturday, Pressley stood in line with her progressive colleagues as she called for the Build Back Better Act to pass alongside the infrastructure bill.

We had an agreement that these two bill would move together not that we would vote for one in exchange for a potential vote on the other if certain conditions were met, Pressley said in her statement. Unfortunately, that agreement was not honored.

Pressley represents parts of Boston and its suburbs and is the first woman of color to be elected to Congress from Massachusetts.

The congresswoman said she would not be forced to choose between expanding physical infrastructure or social programs. On Twitter, she expressed her support for one aspect in particular: Paid family leave.

A proposal for 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave was dropped from the budget bills framework in late October. After outrage from some Democrats over the move, a four-week proposal was added back into the bill.

Paid leave is infrastructure. Full stop, Pressley tweeted last Friday.

Tlaib currently represents Michigans 13th Congressional District, which includesDetroit and its surrounding area. In 2008, Tlaib became the first Muslim woman to serve in the Michigan state Legislature.

On Twitter, Tlaib echoed her progressive colleagues' sentiments on Build Back Better. She toldsupporters in a statementthat in order to pass the infrastructure bill, Congress also needs to pass Bidens social infrastructureplan.

More: House GOP members who voted for infrastructure bill face backlash from Republican colleagues

Separating out BBB risks my residents losing child care, real climate solutions, paid leave, reducing the costs of prescription drugs, labor protections, funding for housing, covering hearing aids & fully funding removal of lead service lines, Tlaib wrote on Twitter. We must pass Build Back Better.

In a statement from her office, Tlaib cites a number of climate change-oriented policies as a reason for her no vote. She says that the infrastructure bill does not prioritize clean air and water for her Michigan constituents.

Tlaib saidher issues with the package stem from language written by Sens.Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. The two senators have been at the center of Bidens infrastructure debate as they objected to his initial $3.5 trillion package and forced the administration to significantly scale back their plans.

I will not sacrifice the health and safety of my residents for two Senators who have shown nothing but contempt for the people I represent, she wrote.

Biden hails infrastructure win as 'monumental'

U.S. President Joe Biden on Saturday hailed Congress' passage of his $1 trillion infrastructure package as a monumental step forward for the nation" after fractious fellow Democrats resolved a months-long standoff in their ranks to seal the deal. (Nov. 6)

AP

View original post here:

Who are the 6 House Democrats who voted against the infrastructure bill? - USA TODAY

Pro-Trump supporters breeched security and entered the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 as Congress debated the 2020 presidential election electoral vote certification. Even after the riot, election subversion is not an animating issue for most voters. Brent Stirton/Getty Images hide caption

Pro-Trump supporters breeched security and entered the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 as Congress debated the 2020 presidential election electoral vote certification. Even after the riot, election subversion is not an animating issue for most voters.

When it comes to the future of American democracy, Democrats are sounding the alarm loudly and often that the country is in a constitutional crisis.

"One of our great political parties has embraced the idea that our last election was fraudulent, that our current president is illegitimate, that they must move legislatures across the country to fix the results, to fix the results of future elections," said Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, in a floor speech arguing in favor of a voting rights bill that was ultimately defeated by a Republican filibuster.

The fix King is talking about are laws passed by Republican state legislatures that could make it harder to cast a ballot and would give partisan Republicans a greater role in certifying elections.

But state legislatures can already determine the outcome of the 2024 election without changing any laws, says Rick Hasen, co-director of the Fair Elections and Free Speech Center at the University of California, Irvine.

"I don't think there needs to be one law that needs to be passed in any state," he says. "You would just need state legislatures to come together or members of Congress to come together and decide that they're going to not follow the rules."

Hasen's nightmare scenario for 2024 is that in key battleground states, legislators who, according to the Constitution are responsible for certifying Electoral College results, say something like this: "'There were irregularities in the election. We can't be sure who the winner is. We've got to appoint an alternative slate of electors.' "

Those slates of electors are sent to Congress, which is then controlled by Republicans who count the GOP electors rather the Democratic electors.

"That's what Trump was trying to get to happen," Hasen says. "That's why the question is whether 2020 was a failed coup or a dress rehearsal for 2024."

Congress finally completed tallying Electoral College votes after the Capitol riot on Jan. 6. Many Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans fear that the process could be subverted in 2024. Erin Schaff/Getty Images hide caption

Congress finally completed tallying Electoral College votes after the Capitol riot on Jan. 6. Many Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans fear that the process could be subverted in 2024.

So what can Democrats do about this?

They're fighting these Republican laws in court. They'd like to pass federal legislation, but that means convincing West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a conservative Democrat, to agree to an exception to the filibuster, the procedural motion whereby the opposition party can block a bill from advancing without 60 votes. Manchin has so far resisted all calls to change the filibuster.

"If there's not going to be an actual policy solution to a lot of the subversion elements, then the only option available to you is a political one," says Sarah Longwell, an anti-Trump Republican who started the group Defending Democracy Together.

"So right now, Trump is going around endorsing candidates who, for the most part, bolster and repeat his claims that the election were stolen. They also say openly that they would potentially not certify the 2024 elections, depending on how they turn out," Longwell says. "And so you have to beat candidates like that."

In particular, Longwell is talking about candidates for secretary of state, state legislature and county clerks, all of whom have a role to play in ensuring that an election is fairly administrated.

But Republicans tend to pay a lot more attention to those kinds of races than Democrats, says former Ohio Democratic Party Chair David Pepper.

"So much of the problem is at the statehouse level and most people, they cannot name their statehouse member. They have no idea what those people's power is. Individual citizens have to really, you know, get involved," Pepper says. "If one side is relentlessly attacking democracy and the other side runs out of gas, the attacks on democracy will succeed."

Democrats have another problem. Even after the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, election subversion is not an animating issue for most voters.

"It's what I would call a low-salience issue," says Longwell, who also runs voter focus groups and has a podcast called "The Focus Group" published by The Bulwark.

Most of the people in Longwell's groups are like Farah, a swing voter from Georgia (NPR agreed to only use the first name of focus group participants).

"I think if a candidate says that they did certify and support the results or not, it's just a non-issue for me," says Farah.

Democratic strategist Doug Thornell says the issue of election subversion does matter to key parts of the Democratic base, especially young voters and people of color.

"But it's complicated, it's not that easy," he says. "It can have a boomerang effect where it ends up sort of causing people to be frustrated and stay home. You don't want that."

While the idea of future election subversion is a complicated one for Democrats to explain to their voters, for Republicans, says Longwell, the false charge that the last election was stolen is actually a big motivator.

When Wyoming Republican U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney wouldn't accept Trump's false claims that the election was stolen from him, she was kicked out of House Republican leadership.

"When [Minority Leader] Kevin McCarthy said that Liz Cheney could no longer be in leadership because she was off message, what he meant was, 'Our message going into 2022 is that the election was stolen. That is a turnout mechanism for us in 2022,' " says Longwell.

As this week's elections show, Republicans don't have to cheat to win. The election in Virginia was high turnout and free of fraud.

But what Democrats and their allies worry about is that in 2024, Republican legislatures in states like Arizona and Georgia erect enough barriers to the ballot and destroy enough democratic norms so that their party simply cannot lose a close race.

Pro-Trump protesters gather in front of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. Brent Stirton/Getty Images hide caption

Pro-Trump protesters gather in front of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

See the article here:

Democrats worry election subversion is still a threat - NPR

Gas prices over $4.00 a gallon are displayed at a Speedway Express station on October 12, 2021 in San Francisco, California.

Justin Sullivan | Getty Images

By most economic metrics, American businesses are staging a remarkable rebound from the Covid-19 recession. But ask the people themselves, and Americans tell you they aren't feeling so peachy.

Employers added more than half a million jobs in October, the unemployment rate is under 5% and spending across the economy is returned to its pre-coronavirus trend. The average hourly wage in the U.S. is up nearly 5% from a year ago, and the S&P 500 is up 39% since President Joe Biden's election in 2020.

But for all the good news, Americans still feel like the economy is going downhill.

That is a problem for Democrats, who are trying to hold on to razor-thin majorities in both the House and the Senate. That's in addition to the usual uphill climb faced by a president's party heading into a midterm election cycle, when the incumbent's side often loses seats.

In a recent NBC News poll, 57% of American said they disapprove of Biden's handling of the economy, while just 40% said they approve. Meanwhile, an October Gallup study showed that 75% of Americans rate current economic conditions in the country as only fair (42%) or poor (33%), while 68% say the economy is worsening. Other polling shows that inflation and economic concerns are outpacing worries about Covid.

Democrats and Republicans agree that one economic phenomenon working against Democrats' odds in 2022 is the recent rise in prices. As such, Democrats are expected to be laser-focused on their legislative achievements when they take to the campaign trail in 2022.

In essence, the party will try to persuade voters on a political gambit: That historic investments in infrastructure, antipoverty programs and climate initiatives are worth pesky but temporary inflation, says Raymond James Washington policy analyst Ed Mills.

"Democrats are likely facing those headwinds regardless of what they do, so they are looking to arm incumbents with a list of accomplishments," Mills wrote in an email.

Democrats hope their recent legislative successes including the $1 trillion infrastructure package will help ease any resentment voters feel about rising prices, which has in recent months driven up the cost of everything from gasoline to groceries.

Wages may be up 4.9% on a year-over-year basis, but the Labor Department's consumer price index one of the most popular inflation gauges was up 5.4% in the 12 months ending in September. That is about the same rate as seen in June and July, all of which are the highest in over a decade. The government is scheduled to release October 2021 CPI data on Wednesday.

That means that many Americans have seen their real wage and purchasing power decline over the past 12 months. Many simply cannot buy as many gallons of gas, cartons of eggs or barrels of home heating oil as they could one year ago.

The national average per-gallon price of regular gasoline is $3.41, up about 40% from $2.42 in February 2020, according to the Department of Energy.

That's why the Biden administration, and every Democrat hoping to win election in 2022, is preparing to meet that inflation pessimism with a list of reasons they think voters should feel better than they do.

Democrats who spoke to CNBC said they plan to counter concerns about rising prices by pointing out steady improvements to the supply chain, better wages and greater access to child care.

"As the country recovers from a once-in-a-century pandemic and economic crisis, the private businesses that make up our supply chains, which get goods to businesses and the American people, have struggled to keep up," a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee told CNBC via email.

Economists say the current rash of inflation stems from a mismatch between robust demand and an insufficient supply of goods the result of logistical hiccups and labor shortages. The White House last week published the first of several reports on the current state of the U.S. supply chain, an effort the administration is taking to track the nation's transportation and logistics.

The administration announced Tuesday efforts to ease some supply-chain issues in the next two months.

Those included directing the Department of Transportation to allow port authorities to redirect project cost savings toward tackling supply-chain challenges, and launch programs to modernize ports and marine highways with more than $240 million in grant funding over the next 45 days.

Read more of CNBC's politics coverage:

"While we experience this temporary pain, and expect things to improve with the passage of President Biden's agenda, we've seen some positive signs, including that wage growth is outpacing inflation, especially for those Americans who had the most insecure jobs and the lowest wages," the DNC spokesman added.

Wages for those employed in the leisure and hospitality industry, which saw some of the ugliest layoffs during the spring of 2020, are in the middle of a robust rebound as hotels, resorts and restaurants scramble to hire. Workers in that sector have seen their average hourly earnings rise to $19.04 from $17.12 one year ago, a more than 11% increase.

A few sectors with wages outpacing inflation haven't deterred Republicans from homing in on the broader inflation problem and warning that even more fiscal stimulus could make the problem worse.

"Biden's Build Back Broke agenda has led to skyrocketing prices, a supply chain crisis, a slowing economy, a worker shortage, and weak job growth," Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a press release on Oct. 28. "Trillions more in wasteful spending and higher taxes will only further hurt the middle class and recovering small businesses."

Virginia voters appeared to have heeded that warning on Nov. 2, when Republican Glenn Youngkin defeated Democratic former Governor Terry McAuliffe in that state's gubernatorial election. Youngkin's victory in Virginia, which Biden won by a healthy 10 points in 2020, is being seen as a de facto playbook for the rest of the party heading into 2022.

"We must continue to focus on the failures of the Biden economy," Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., wrote in a memo following the Virginia election results. Banks is chair of the Republican Study Committee, a group of the most conservative House Republicans.

U.S. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) announces the withdrawal of his nominees to serve on the special committee probing the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, as two of the Republican nominees, Reps' Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Jim Banks (R-IN), standby during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, July 21, 2021.

Elizabeth Frantz | Reuters

"Youngkin focused on providing relief to runaway inflation caused by the Biden economy and on not locking down the economy again," he added. "Our early focus on runaway inflation and the growing supply chain crisis is hitting home with voters. We need to keep hammering away and work on bringing solutions to the table to address their concerns."

Democrats argue that both the $1 trillion infrastructure and the $1.75 trillion Build Back Better bills will help ease those supply chain issues. The House passed the bipartisan infrastructure bill last week, sending it to Biden's desk, after party progressives and centrists made a nonbinding pact to approve the social-spending plan later in November.

"If you are worried about inflation, it's important to understand why it's happening: supply chain, labor, and healthcare complications," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote in a Twitter post on Thursday.

"My family is one of essential workers: school bus drivers, postal workers, cleaners, etc," she added. "When childcare wasn't available, my family couldn't work they stayed home. When childcare isn't universally available, it impacts the labor market. It can become a supply chain issue!"

Raymond James analyst Mills says that, at the end of the day, Democrats are making a wager.

The big bet is that the promise of more efficient ports and highway systems, along with greater access to child care, will help bring workers back into the labor force, ease inflation, and win over a population that does not feel helped.

The upside for Democrats is they have some time. Inflation could relax, supply chains could come back to full capacity and the positive effects of their legislation could begin to make an impact on voters before the 2022 midterms.

"They are hoping to point to SALT tax relief, extension of the Child Tax credit, extended childcare support, down-payment assistance for housing, as ways the reconciliation provides tangible benefits and a net tax cut for most households," Mills wrote. "Whether or not this moves the needle with voters is the bigger debate."

Read more:

Inflation is making voters unhappy with the economy Democrats hope their infrastructure and social bills change that - CNBC

Party will do everything but take a hard look at where it went wrong

The past is often prologue in politics, and that is why Democrats, stung by losses in Virginia and unexpectedly close calls elsewhere, are scrambling (A disconcerting election night for Democrats, Scot Lehigh, Opinion, Nov. 4). But instead of a clear-eyed understanding about what has gone wrong so quickly on the road to Build Back Better, the partys potentates and their media acolytes have engaged in magical thinking, as if we hoi polloi cannot focus on what our eyes and ears register.

Thus, Democratic prestidigitators suggest, for example, that we are racists, even though the defeated Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Virginia introduced racism when he decried that there are too many white teachers in his states public schools. That was in addition to stating that parents should not question school authorities about educational priorities. If that does not unnerve attentive independent voters, I dont know what could.

The continued bad-mouthing of Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin over their positions on the Build Back Better bill is another stumbling block for the attentive voter.

Of course, the not-so-secret weapon that Democrats have is the loud narcissist named Donald Trump who could singlehandedly give them a win in 2022 by simply doing what he does best.

Stay tuned.

Paul Bloustein

Cincinnati

Lessons from Virginia (get your notebooks out, and sharpen those pencils!)

Last Tuesday, Virginians loudly affirmed the parents right to tell schools what they should teach. Henceforth the Commonwealth of Virginia will allow parents (especially white suburban mothers) to monitor and review their childrens curriculum in every subject.

In physics, for example, they will be able to decide just which subatomic particles may be discussed in class; for example, protons, neutrons, and electrons are OK, but muons are not, and, for Gods sake, absolutely no mention of the Higgs boson. In some school districts, however, they may stick with the pre-Socratic philosopher Democritus and insist that the atom is indivisible (as the Greek etymology of the word makes clear).

And what about the theory of evolution? Banned again? Is it time for another Scopes trial, nearly a century after the first one? Remember what Dubya said: The jury is still out on the theory of evolution.

Pasquale G. Tato

Cambridge

The Democrats govern in prose that in itself is poetic

Of course the Democrats disagree with how to proceed in governing (Its the circular firing squad again for the Democrats, Letters, Nov. 5). They want to do things, things to improve life in our country and for the planet. There are options to be considered, priorities to evaluate, decisions to be made. The Republicans have no such internal competition for ideas. They are content, even eager, to leave everything as it is: Keep people of color and other disadvantaged citizens suppressed, maintain the tax code to benefit the rich, support fossil fuel extraction in the face of environmental degradation and climate change, and remain in thrall to an autocratic, self-serving hierarchy.

We cannot improve as a people unless we are willing to change, and if change and compromise are anathema, we cannot improve.

Tom Powers

Hudson

Work now to boost Democrats majority in Congress

For all who are upset about the disproportionate power that West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin yields in the Senate, there is a solution: Do everything in your power to get more Democrats elected to the Senate and the House. With more Democrats, we wont need the votes of Manchin and Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema as much. Write postcards, send money, work on campaigns to get more Democrats elected. Grass-roots efforts work as long as some states dont strip people of the voting power.

Annette Pietro

Canton

Pressley and The Squad stumble by standing on principle

Ayanna Pressley and members of The Squad demonstrated political ineptness and immaturity by voting against the Biden infrastructure bill. At least their self-defeating stance was countered by 13 reasonable Republicans in the House who voted for it. Apparently the bill as passed didnt give them everything they had wanted. They couched their lack of support in noble-sounding terms of refusing to choose between what the bill provides and a variety of things they insisted on.

The essence of mature politics is rational compromise and learning to take a victory even if its only a partial win. You then return to continue the fight another day. Until Pressley and The Squad learn not to stamp their feet when they dont completely get their way, they will continue to endanger the Democrats ability to pass much-needed progressive legislation. The next time we may not be so lucky.

Jeffrey Miner

Belmont

Go here to see the original:

The Democrats have a majority and a bit of a problem - The Boston Globe

Bret: Does my column really post on Facebook? Didnt know that.

This probably sounds horribly misanthropic, but when Facebook came around, I feared it would be a handy way of connecting with people to whom I didnt particularly want to be connected. So-and-so from graduate school? Maybe we fell out of touch for a reason. Second cousin twice removed in Melbourne? Hope hes having a nice life. Its hard enough to be a good friend to people in our real lives to waste time on virtual friendships in digital spaces.

Now Ive been reading a multipart investigation in The Wall Street Journal on the perils of the platform, which include less sleep, worse parenting, the abandonment of creative hobbies and so on. Facebooks own researchers estimate that 1 in 8 people on the platform suffers from some of these symptoms, which amounts to 360 million people worldwide. As someone pointed out, the word user applies to people on social media just as much as it does to people on meth.

I guess the question is whether the government should regulate it and if so, how.

Gail: This takes me back to early America, when most people lived in small towns or on farms and had very little input from the outside world.

They were very tight-knit, protective, familial and very inclined to stick to their clan and isolate, discriminate, persecute and, yes, enslave the folks who werent part of the group. You had a lot of good qualities of togetherness and helping the team but a lot of clannishness and injustice to nonmembers.

Bret: Almost sounds like an academic department at a placid New England college. Sorry, go on.

Gail: The Postal Service brought newspapers and letters and changed all that. And, of course, there were also unfortunate effects a lot of mobilizing to fight against the newly discovered outside world.

I think the digital revolution is maybe as important people are making new friends around the globe, discovering tons and tons of new information but also ganging up on folks they dont like. Discriminating not only against minority groups but also the less popular members of their own.

Bret: The moral of the story is that theres no substitute for in-person relationships, whether its between colleagues, acquaintances, friends, family members or even two columnists who agree about 40 percent of the time. Which reminds me that theres this cabernet that we still need to share, so that we can mourn or celebrate last weeks news.

Continued here:

Opinion | The Democrats No Good, Very Bad Day Changes the Landscape - The New York Times