Archive for March, 2017

To Win Again, Democrats Must Stop Being the Abortion Party – New York Times


New York Times
To Win Again, Democrats Must Stop Being the Abortion Party
New York Times
When I came to this country from Ireland some 45 years ago, a cousin, here 15 years before, advised me that Catholics vote Democratic. Having grown up in the Irish Republic, I was well disposed to Republican Party principles like local autonomy and ...

and more »

See the original post:
To Win Again, Democrats Must Stop Being the Abortion Party - New York Times

Insults Fly Between Democrats in New York Senate, Underscoring Rift – New York Times


New York Times
Insults Fly Between Democrats in New York Senate, Underscoring Rift
New York Times
In mid-March, Senator Michael N. Gianaris, a Queens Democrat, accused a group of eight breakaway Democrats, who have partnered with the Senate Republicans, of being President Trump's New York Democrats happy to eat the crumbs from the ...

and more »

Here is the original post:
Insults Fly Between Democrats in New York Senate, Underscoring Rift - New York Times

Republicans Are Trying to Raise Elizabeth Warren’s Profile. So Are Democrats. – Mother Jones

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

On February 7, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was reading a letter critical of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), then the nominee for attorney general, when the Senate's top Republican forced her to stop. Invoking an obscure Senate rule against disparaging colleagues, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)had Warren ejected from the Senate chamber. Minutes later, she appeared on MSNBC and #letlizspeak began trending on Twitter. Warren then read the full letterwhich had been written by Coretta Scott King in 1986on Facebook Live. By the next morning, the Facebook video had been viewed more than 5 million times.

McConnell, known as one of the savviest political operators in Washington, appeared to have made an uncharacteristic mistake. Rather than silence Warren's message, he made it go viral. McConnell defended his decision that night by stating that he had warned Warren but "nevertheless, she persisted"a phrase Warren's supporters have now emblazoned on apparel, mugs, and their bodies as tattoos.

But there were some who theorized that McConnell was, as ever, two steps ahead. Reporters and pundits debated whether McConnell had intentionally elevated Warren's public profile because he wants the Democratic Party to be defined by one of its most liberal members. Not long after, a report inPolitico corroborated this theory: Republicans have decided to use Warren as a sort of boogeyman ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, when 10 Democratic senators are up for reelection in states Donald Trump won. By late February, the committee tasked with electing Republicans to the Senate launched digital ads attacking vulnerable Democrats by stating how often they had voted with Warren.

At a time of division within their party, Republicans believe the best strategy is to unite against a common foe. Without Barack Obama in the White House, they need someone else to run against in 2018. Warren, a household name and an unapologetic liberal, is an easy choice. Ford O'Connell, a Republican strategist in Washington, DC, says going after Warren is part of the Republican playbook for 2020, as well. "Always define your opponent before your opponent can define you," he says. And taking on Warren now, O'Connell suggests, will hurt her chances if she becomes her party's presidential nominee in 2020.

What's strange about Warren is that both parties seem to agree that she should be in the spotlight.

A law professor who studied bankruptcy and debt, Warren arrived on the political scene in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. She pushed the federal government to set up an agency to protect ordinary Americans from unfair practices by Wall Street and other industriesan effort that led to the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In the Senate, she voted down Obama's nominees whom she considered too cozy with Wall Street. She has championed issues like student loan reform and raising the minimum wage that Democrats believe will appeal to voters charmed by Trump, who has already endangered his populist reputation by filling his Cabinet with mega-rich Wall Street alumni.

What's strange about Warren is that both parties seem to agree that she should be in the spotlight. Democrats say they welcome Republicans' decision to elevate one of their most populist voices. Ultimately, they believe Republicans' strategy will backfire because Warren's reputation and message resonate across the country. "Elizabeth Warren was Bernie Sanders before Bernie Sanders," says Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic strategist in Massachusetts. "When you look at her first race here [for the Senate in 2012], she tapped into much of the sort of populist economic anxiety that a lot of people had here in Massachusetts. That's not going to go away."

And if red-state Democrats are afraid of Warren's progressive reputation, they don't show it. Warren has visited Republican-leaning states on behalf of Democratic candidates, from Kentucky (where she helped McConnell's challenger, Alison Lundergan Grimes, in 2014) to Ohio (where she campaigned for Hillary Clinton last year).

One of the best examples is her work on behalf of Jason Kander, who ran a surprisingly close race last year for the US Senate in Missouri against incumbent Republican Roy Blunt. In 2018, Missouri's Democratic senator, Claire McCaskill, is up for reelection, and the Warren-as-boogeyman strategy could be tested there. As early as 2015, Warren sent out emails on behalf of Kander. She held fundraisers and flew to Missouri for a last-minute rally. "Sen. Warren's profile being raised is not a bad thing for the party at all," says Abe Rakov, Kander's campaign manager. "I think she's a very, very good messenger for the party, and I think it showed in Missouri."

Of course, Kander lost, as did Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky and Clinton in Ohio. But Warren consistently drew some of the biggest crowds, and Rakov says her presence was only a benefit to the campaign. "After she was here, we saw our volunteer numbers go up, we saw our fundraising go up," he recalls. Over the course the election, he says, Kander's campaign had built up "a lot of evidence that it was sort of a Republican myth that she would cause us problems." (Her fundraising prowess was evident after McConnell kicked her off the Senate floor, when a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee email about the incident helped the group shatter previous fundraising records.)

But if Republicans are able to cast her as a typical liberal zealot rather than a populist messenger, their strategy of running against her makes sense. "She has been very polarizing along party lines, even in Massachusetts," says Steve Koczela, a pollster in Boston. He agrees that Warren's message probably resonates with some Trump voters on a policy level but says that is unlikely to endear her to them. "Logic doesn't always apply when evaluating partisan actors these days," he says. "It's more, do people see you as with them or with the other team?"

Simply raising Warren's profile may not be enough to turn white working-class voterswhose support in Rust Belt states was key to Trump's electoral victoryagainst her and the Democratic Party. Roland "Butch" Taylor, a retired welder and pipefitter in northeast Ohio, supported Clinton in 2016, but many of his peers and fellow union members backed Trump. When asked about Warren, he immediately brought up the episode on the Senate floor. "When they gaveled her on the Senate floor, what did she do?" he said. "She didn't go back in the back and pout. She went right to the cameras and started her own speech in front of American people." Rather than show her as an out-of-touch liberal, Taylor said, the episode convinced him "that's the kind of leader you need." He thinks Clinton might have done better in the Ohio Rust Belt if Warren had been on the ticket with her. "She would make a great candidate for the party for 2020," he said.

That's exactly what Democrats are counting onthat Warren's persona and message will appeal beyond the party's progressive base and coastal and urban strongholds. But O'Connell says he isn't worried about Warren's populist message undercutting Republicans. Warren's support for environmental regulations, he believes, provides a wedge issue Republicans can use to hold onto working-class white voters who supported Trump in November. "What you're seeing here is a potential collision between environmentalists, which Warren loves, and big labor," he says. Taylor, whose livelihood depended on the oil and gas industries in Ohio, would be a good target of that strategy. He even qualified his praise for Warren by stressing that her appeal is contingent on her support for energy-sector jobs.

Ultimately, Democrats and Republicans simply disagree on the extent and geography of Warren's popularity. Democrats think she can attract support across the country and that her ability to fire up the base is an asset that Clinton lacked in 2016. Republicans believe her appeal is limited to her base. "The one thing I think that Republicans are betting on, should she actually become the Democratic presidential nominee," O'Connell says, "is that she isn't going to be able to come up with a message that is unifying for all 50 states."

Go here to see the original:
Republicans Are Trying to Raise Elizabeth Warren's Profile. So Are Democrats. - Mother Jones

An immigration-reform plan for the age of Trump

Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator from South Carolina, hasnt given up on immigration reform. He was in the Senate to watch comprehensive bills he favored fall apart in 2006, 2007, and 2013. He was one of the presidential candidates whom Donald Trump beat for the Republican nomination in 2016. Trump won that contest after saying he would deport all illegal immigrants over a two-year period.

But Trump softened on the issue after winning the nomination, and Graham now thinks he can work with him to achieve many of the aims of those earlier bills. He isnt trying to revive comprehensive legislation one more time, but he also rejects the idea of tackling issues a la carte. If Republicans try to enact legislation that only increases enforcement of the immigration laws, he believes Democrats will block it.

Instead, he tells me, he favors a series of discrete deals.

The first one would combine ramped-up enforcement, starting with the bad dudes, and the legalization of illegal immigrants who came here as minors. Republicans are open to that legalization, he said, and it would be hard for Democrats to say no to securing the border and helping these 800,000 kids have a better life.

Advertisement

The second one would legalize adult illegal immigrants working in agriculture and tourism, and at the same time require employers to use the e-verify program to make sure all new hires are legal workers.

Third, Graham would legalize those remaining illegal immigrants who passed a background check and paid a fine. In return he wants to shift legal immigration toward recruiting people with high skills rather than reuniting extended families. The immigration system of the future would be merit-based, he says.

I opposed the previous bills that Graham supported, and Im not completely sold on this plan. But it has enough attractive elements to make me think that those of us who are more hawkish than Graham on immigration should consider it.

The earlier bills would have substantially increased immigration, and low-skilled immigrants would have made up much of the increase. Most Americans dont want that, and the economic case for it is weak. His current idea would not raise immigration levels.

Under earlier versions of comprehensive reform, illegal immigrants might have gotten legal status before effective enforcement measures were in place - because, for example, those measures were tied up in court. In that case, legalization could have acted as a magnet for more illegal immigration, and we would remain stuck in a cycle of illegal immigration and amnesty. This three-step sequence would reduce this risk, because Congress would enact most of the legalization after enforcement had been implemented.

One reason advocates for illegal immigrants have opposed enforcement-first bills is that they have feared that Republicans would never get around to addressing their concerns once they got those bills enacted. Because Grahams first step would include the legalization of illegal immigrants who came here as minors, though, it might be taken as a sign of good faith.

As leery as congressmen are about trying to address immigration again, Graham believes that the expiration of President Barack Obamas executive order granting quasi-legal status to illegal immigrants who came here as minors will be a tripwire forcing action. Republicans dont want Trump to renew their status they said it was an abuse of power when Obama granted it but fear the political consequences of exposing them to deportation again. So they have an incentive to pass legislation granting legal status, but they will want to get something to make that legislation more congenial to conservatives.

The senator thinks he has one more thing going for him: the president. Heres the key: Trump can do something no other Republican can do on immigration, Graham said. What Trump can do is persuade the voters who are most concerned about illegal immigration that he is enforcing the law, and serious about making sure it is enforced in the future.

The fact that comprehensive reform got as far as it did in the past, Graham added, suggests that congressional majorities could be assembled for many of its components. All in all, he is more hopeful than most observers that a productive immigration compromise, or series of compromises, can be reached. For that to happen, many of the Republicans who blocked previous bills would have to come along.

What are the prospects of that? Grahams judgment: I believe the party will follow Trump if he leads.

Ponnuru is a Bloomberg View columnist. He is a senior editor of National Review and the author of The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life.

Continued here:
An immigration-reform plan for the age of Trump

Opinion: Immigration reform could be the win that Trump and the economy need – MarketWatch

President Donald Trump needs a win, and immigration reform is a good candidate that could help rev up the economy.

Economists estimate potential growth by forecasting the sum of labor-force growth and productivity. Both have been declining in recent decades causing the profession to doubt the economy can expand at much more than the 2.1% annual pace accomplished during the recent recovery.

Immigration reform could help on both fronts.

Opinion Journals Mary Kissel and Business World Columnist Holman Jenkins Jr. on Paul Ryans healthcare reform showdown. Plus, the Paul Manafort pile-on, Senator Schumers Gorsuch gamble and Bari Weisss weekly book pick.

The United States has about 43 million immigrants and adds about 1.5 million each year but unlike Canada and several other industrialized countries, the United States places a much larger emphasis on family reunification in granting visas. The net number of illegal immigrants has remained unchanged in recent years, owing mostly to declining birth rates and strong economic growth in developing countries.

The United States grants green cards fairly automatically to spouses, children under 21 and parents of U.S. citizens. Subject to limits set by Congress and the president, it grants preferences to other relatives of citizens and legal immigrants, refugees, and those with job offers or who would make significant investments or contribute to economic growth.

The rules are complex but the upshot is that about 65% of immigrant visas are granted based on family ties, 15% on the basis of employment, and the remainder are mostly refugees or applicants who qualify for a provision for an underrepresented country.

The immigrant population tends to be considerably older than the native-born population, places a disproportionate burden on entitlements programs about half qualify for means-tested programs such as free school lunches and have less education, on average, than the native-born population.

According to an authoritative National Academy of Sciences study, immigrants in the workforce tend to be concentrated among two groups: those with less than a high school education folks who often do the jobs Americans wont take and those with more than a four-year college education new arrivals doing jobs that not enough Americans are not trained to do in information technology, science and engineering or requiring other advanced degrees.

The negative impact on wages of lower skilled workers is not profound. One likely reason is that the economy already has a considerable surplus of able-bodied adults not participating in the labor force, who could be encouraged to seek employment, if wages for unattractive jobs were not already hammered down to the barest levels for workers to subsist when supplemented by benefits like food stamps, Medicaid and the like.

However, the overall impact on growth is positiveafter all the potential of the information technology, medical, university and other R&D-intensive sectors is enhanced by the influx of high-skilled foreign workersand creates a net benefit by overwhelming the costs imposed by lower wages to unskilled workers.

Also, immigration stresses social cohesion. This tends to be concentrated in blue-collar communities who voted for Trump. However, visits to the office towers housing Manhattans financial industries or technology parks in Californiaand the communities where their workers liveattests to the notion that cultural affinities binding together professional groups tend to overwhelm ethnic differences among highly-skilled immigrant and native workers.

New technologies in robots and artificial intelligence await to dramatically boost productivity but those require more skilled workers than we haveour native population simply does not train for the skills needed in sufficient numberand the IT, manufacturing and several other sectors face a constant challenge to find enough skilled workers.

Hence, a better mix of immigrants could boost productivity and growth

Sen. Tom Cotton from Arkansas has introduced a bill that would limit family reunification visas to children and spouses but leave the employment quota unchanged. Thats a good start, but granting a visa to anyone with a college degree or technical skill, has a solid job offer and would not displace an incumbent legal worker would most positively boost the U.S. labor force as baby boomers retire.

A better balance of immigrants would accelerate the development and deployment of new technologies, reduce social stress associated with new arrivals and keep the Golden Door open to those it has always welcomedthe ambitious who can make the most of America.

View post:
Opinion: Immigration reform could be the win that Trump and the economy need - MarketWatch