Mediaboss Marketing

Local Republican politicians assured constituents at a Saturday night fundraising event they are taking action to fix Illinois' budget issues.

Rock Island County Republicans hosted a Lincoln Day Dinner in Moline to raise funds for party candidates and operations. About 175 people participated in the dinner and auction events.

Addressing the group, state Rep.Tony McCombie, R-Savanna, asserted Republicans aren't afraid of being verbal about the budget. "We're not pretending that it's not an issue," she said.

According to Rep. McCombie, last week the Illinois House of Representatives approved $295 million in funds. "I voted 'no' for all of these," she said. "Fiscally, we can't afford any new programs, no matter how good they are."

State Sen. Neil Anderson, R-Rock Island, agreed, saying the budget in its current state is "bleeding."

"We have to make sure we're focused on budgeting for a full year," Sen. Anderson said, "instead of piece-mealing something together."

He also acknowledged the state is in "this mess" because of both sides. "It's going to take both sides to get this done," he said.

Sen. Anderson said eight of the 13 bills he recently introduced have passed and that they"represent the values of our region." Rep. McCombie assured constituents she is traveling her district and reported she has proposed four bills in her first 100 days in office.

Both speakers thanked those in attendance for their support and requested feedback.

About 15 protesters stood outside the event at the Viking Club at 1450 41st St. toward the beginning of the event. Some of the protesters indicated they were representatives from public service employee union AFSCME.

Read more from the original source:
Republican leaders emphasize budget issues at Lincoln Day dinner - Quad-Cities Online

WASHINGTON (AP) For Donald Trump, self-proclaimed master negotiator, making deals with Congress was supposed to be easy. This Congress is going to be the busiest Congress weve had in decades, maybe ever, Trump predicted shortly after taking office.

With Republicans in charge of the House, the Senate and the White House for the first time in a decade, Trump didnt reckon with the reality of GOP divisions so intractable they may doom his major legislative priorities.

A restive right flank willing to defy party leaders dealt him a humiliating setback on health care last month. That called into question whether Republicans will ever make good on their longstanding promise of repealing and replacing former President Barack Obamas Affordable Care Act. If they cant, they will likely also struggle to produce the sweeping tax legislation and massive infrastructure investments that Trump promised.

The White House is pushing House GOP leaders to try again on health care, and theres been recent progress as the conservative House Freedom Caucus endorsed the latest version of the bill. But leaders are struggling to round up support from more moderate Republicans, and its uncertain when or if the legislation will come to a vote.

Meanwhile, the government is operating under a one-week, stopgap spending bill to avert a shutdown on Saturday, which coincides with Trumps 100th day in office. Lawmakers needed more time to finish their sweeping $1 trillion legislation for the remainder of the 2017 budget year, work that is Congress most basic function.

The White House intervened in the negotiations late in the game to make demands on issues including the U.S.-Mexico border wall subsequently dropped. That was an intervention even some Republicans said was not productive.

With little in the way of actual results so far, some Republicans have begun to fret openly about their thin record of accomplishments, and sound alarms about a backlash from voters if the GOP doesnt begin to produce.

We cant afford to go to the country in 2018 with a Republican president, Republican Senate and Republican House and say well we just couldnt get it done, said GOP Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma. Thats not defensible.

Trump himself voiced frustration in an interview airing Friday on Fox News Channel, saying, Im disappointed that it doesnt go quicker.

I think everybody is trying very hard, the president said. It is a very tough system.

It wasnt supposed to be this way after eight years of chafing under Obama.

House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky pledged they would seize the opportunity to work with the new Republican president and enact a bold GOP vision starting with making good on seven years of promises to get rid of Obamas health law and replace it with something better. Comprehensive tax reform was to follow, plus work on infrastructure, immigration, an orderly budgeting process emphasizing GOP priorities, and more.

The people have given us unified government. And it wasnt because they were feeling generous. Its because they wanted results, Ryan said in his opening day address to the House in January after his election as speaker. How could we live with ourselves if we let them down?

It didnt take long for lofty goals to fizzle as it became clear that Republicans, after achieving political success as an opposition party, were less accustomed to the role of governing.

Trump himself, unfamiliar with the arduous process of legislating, set unrealistic goals, pledging an Obamacare repeal on Day One, something that was never going to happen. Other legislative priorities he had promised to work on with Congress during his first 100 days including school choice legislation, ethics reforms and a community safety bill have barely been discussed at all.

The one bright spot that stands out for many Republicans is Senate confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. It took breaking Senate rules to do it, but for many Republicans lifetime appointment of a young and reliably conservative jurist makes up for many other deficiencies.

There are some people I know who voted for Trump solely because he would put a conservative on the court, so theyre good, said Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla.

Republicans also point to progress on regulatory issues, with Congress employing a tool called the Congressional Review Act, previously little used, to undo a raft of regulations passed toward the end of the Obama years.

For their part, Democrats scoff at the GOPs underwhelming record, noting that Congress passed a massive economic stimulus bill and other legislation during Obamas first 100 days.

Republicans have not accomplished very much in the first 100 days, said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York. If they reach out to Democrats and work in a bipartisan way they could get a lot more done.

Republicans say the best could still be yet to come, with House leaders nurturing hopes of passing their health bill as soon as next week along with completing work on the 2017 spending bills, which would allow them to turn to tax legislation and other issues.

Said Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania: I just hope the second 100 days are better than the first.

Read the original here:
Republican divisions stall legislative agenda - The Daily Progress

Democrats may still be reeling from the 2016 election, but they arent the only ones who need to think about what their party needs to be willing to sacrifice to increase voter share.

As the Democratic Party comes to grips with the results of the 2016 election, smaller races have started to take on a much larger significance than they normally would.

The special election in Kansass 4th Congressional District was the first such race. The Democrat, Jim Thompson, lost by 7 points to Republican Ron Estes. The next one, Georgias 6th Congressional District special election, is heading to a runoff between Democrat Jon Ossoff and Republican Karen Handel. And now the mayoral race in Omaha, Nebraska, is coming up in early May.

Two weeks ago, the Democratic National Committee held a unity event with Heath Mello, an Omaha mayoral candidate. NARAL hit the DNC hard for its support of Mello, calling him anti-choice, and Bernie Sanders, a guest at the unity event, caught a lot of criticism for standing with Mello.

The evidence for NARALs charge is that Mello once supported a law that instructed doctors to inform women that they may view an ultrasound of their baby before terminating a pregnancy. Though Jane Kleeb, the chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party, refers to Mello as pro-life, he has been adamant he would never restrict any access to abortion and he enjoys a 100 percent rating from Nebraska Planned Parenthood.

The issue isnt abortion, or it isnt just abortion, its everything that a party stands for and what its willing to sacrifice as it increases its voter share. It isnt just a question for the Democrats.

The question both parties are asking themselves, or should be, is who do we want to be? For Republicans, this all came into stark focus when Donald Trump tore through their primaries. The cheat-sheet of Republicanismpro-life, for smaller government, pro-free tradewas systematically destroyed by their eventual nominee. He rarely spoke of abortion at all, and when he did he sounded like a Martian who had landed on Earth only to learn about the pro-life position from the caricatures leftists painted of it. When he said he would be open to arresting women who had had an abortion, it was clear this was not a candidate who had a deep regard or understanding for the pro-life movement.

It didnt stop at abortion, of course. As Trump laid waste to longtime conservative positions, Republicans had to keep reminding themselves that he had assured them of a good Supreme Court pick if elected. He delivered on that promise. He also, in many ways, has governed as a traditional Republican president. Hes learned the language and sometimes uses it correctly. The weekend he shunned the White House Correspondents Dinner, he didnt just have a rally, he spoke at the National Rifle Associations convention and promised them that the eight-year assault on your Second Amendment freedoms has come to a crashing end. This was a far cry from the candidate who agreed with Hillary Clinton on using the no-fly list to curtail who was allowed to own guns.

So what now? Trade is one area where Trump had not budged. If the partys president is openly against free trade, does the party move in that direction with him? When Trump talks of ending Obamacare, it sometimes seems he wants to replace it with something to its left. He has spoken positively of the medical systems of Canada and Scotland, not exactly conservative stalwarts. We will take care of everybody is not what a small-government conservative says. Yet his message is the one that won. Theres no question he grew the Republican tent and appealed to people who arent natural Republican voters.

Dick Morris used to say that if you dont want your candidate to openly talk about being pro-choice, have them talk a lot about the environment. People will make the connection themselves. The idea is that where you stand on one issue, especially one like abortion, can represent where you stand on a number of other issues. On the conservative side, being pro-life would often mean you were for smaller government or were a defender of the Second Amendment. Where you stood on life on the right or choice on the left represented where you would stand on everything else.

It didnt always fit, exactly, especially when Republicans ran in a blue area or Democrats ran in red ones. In 2004, in Georgia, I got to watch two candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives, Democrat Rick Crawford and Republican Phil Gingrey, debate. Crawford got up to speak and told the room how he was born in Georgia and how he was just like them. Im pro-life, he said. Im against gay marriage, I want to bring back prayer in schools and I dont want to take away your guns.

Dumbfounded, I double-checked the program to see that I was indeed listening to a Democrat. But what we are doing on out-sourcing just isnt right, he continued. He was a protectionist. Thats what made him a Democrat in Georgia. That was enough to make him one of the liberal activist blog Daily Koss main targeted races that year, the same Daily Kos that rescinded its endorsement of Heath Mello for not being perfect on choice. Crawford lost that year but then won a seat in 2007. Did the Democrats win with a candidate like Crawford? Not exactly. In 2012, Crawford officially became a Republican.

What do we stand for? is not a bad question for the party completely out of power, and the party that controls all branches of power, to be asking itself.

For Democrats, they have to answer whether they can throw support, and more importantly resources, behind candidates who are distant from them ideologically on tenets central to party identity. Can they support pro-gun candidates? What about candidates who support charter schools? Can a Democrat be anti-union? What about anti-immigration? How much should a party bend to grow its tent?

For the Republicans, the idea that they should look ahead to what the party will be after the age of Trump is one they must entertain sooner rather than later. So many Republicans are still in the we won! phase after the election. The question they should be asking is who is we?

See the article here:
When the Tent Gets Too Big: A Democratic (and Republican) Reckoning - Daily Beast

In the past two weeks, we witnessed two historic electoral events. On April 16, Turkey voted to grant its president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, near-absolute power, and on April 23, France voted to send the far-right candidate Marine Le Pen to the final runoff for president, with the final election between Le Pen and centrist Emmanuel Macron set for May 7.

These two events continue a disturbing trend of leaders who espouse authoritarian platforms winning in popular elections across the globe.

Pundits are framing these events as indicators of a debate around globalization, with people such as Le Pen who leads the National Front, a party with a deep history of fascist and anti-Semitic positions, and who as recently as two weeks ago seemed to downplay Frances role in the holocaust leading a populist wave against entrenched globalists. Unfortunately, this framing is incomplete and misleading.

There is no question that people across the globe are wrestling with the costs and benefits of globalization; however, the underlying argument that is driving recent events is over whether democracy or authoritarianism is better suited to create economic opportunity and provide security.

Turkeys descent into authoritarianism is illustrative of the global trend.

Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party, or AKP, were first elected into power in 2002 as reformers, intent on continuing Turkeys integration with Europe while cleaning up government and restoring economic growth. Though negotiations with Europe stalled after a few years, Erdogan (as prime minister) successfully managed to drive growth, with the economy growing around 7 percent a year from 2002 to 2007.

In the early years, Erdogan also strengthened civil rights and reduced the role of the military in civilian life (notable in a country where the military habitually overthrew any civilian government that it felt strayed too far from Turkeys secular customs).

Yet by 2010, signs emerged of a shifting landscape. That year, Turkey voted to adopt a referendum put forth by Erdogan and the AKP. The referendum contained many constitutional changes that had widespread support, such as measures to expand protections for women and children; but the referendum also granted the AKP significant power to shape the judiciary branch, weakening a check on the AKPs (and Erdogans) power. The referendum passed with 58 percent of the vote, demonstrating the depth of Erdogans personal support; but the vote pattern previewed splits in the country that would deepen in the ensuing years, with deep pockets of voters in major urban areas rejecting the referendum.

Since 2010, Turkey has been buffeted by the Syrian civil war and broader regional conflict, a slowing economy (annual GDP growth dropped below 5 percent), numerous deadly terrorist attacks and severe internal political division.

As the economy slowed and political opposition intensified with massive street protests against Erdogan and the AKP in 2013 Erdogan intensified his attacks and began arresting anyone who spoke out against him (Turkey currently jails the highest-number of journalists in the world).

This internal strife culminated in an attempted coup in July 2016. After surviving the attempt, Erdogan declared a state of emergency and arrested tens of thousands of people.

It was during this state of emergency, with thousands of citizens still in jail or under surveillance, that Turkey went to the polls to decide whether to grant Erdogan even more expansive powers. The referendum passed on April 16 of this year with 51.4 percent of the vote. As a result, Turkey will officially move from a parliamentary system to a presidential system, with power centralized in President Erdogan (he was elected president in 2014).

Erdogan will also be able to stand for election potentially two more times, extending his reign for another decade.

We could write off Turkeys turn to authoritarianism as a symptom of the regions instability. Similarly, if France chooses Macron over Le Pen on May 7, we could shrug off Le Pens campaign as an anomaly fueled by Europes refugee crisis or stagnant economic growth. But to do so would only allow authoritarianism to continue its spread unabated.

Instead we should see these events for what they are authoritarian forces capitalizing on deep-seated anxiety and uncertainty to seize power.

If we acknowledge what these events signify, then we can act. The authoritarians playbook is simple and clear. Authoritarians blame clearly identifiable others as the cause of a nations problems and call for restoring national glory. They coerce, bribe or co-opt media outlets into spreading propaganda. They use every lever possible to turn anxiety into fear and fear into anger.

It is not a particularly nuanced strategy, but it does not require a sophisticated effort to secure victory when those who champion democracy remain in denial about what is happening.

Our actions can begin at home. The stronger we make our democracy, the more powerfully we will be able to refute authoritarian efforts abroad. To this end, we can look at our own politics and ask if we are advancing efforts that will expand engagement in our democratic process.

Are we seeking out those who feel left out and finding ways to connect? Are we asking each other to serve a greater good through meaningful civic participation? As we strengthen our democracy, we will inoculate ourselves against authoritarianisms subterfuge. We will also exemplify for the world why democracy, however complicated, slow-moving and contentious, remains the surest way to lift up all people and secure lasting peace.

(Dan Vallone is a West Point graduate who served six years on active duty as an infantry officer. He lives in Concord.)

More:
My Turn: As the light of one democracy goes out, another begins to flicker - Concord Monitor

This week, Sen. Peter Harder, embarked on a herculean political mission aimed at helping get Canada's Senate working the way the government wants it to. Which is to say, passing Liberal legislation.

The government's representative in the Senate had been telling Albertans how the new-look Red Chamber, most of whose inhabitants are independent, could return to its "traditional role as a voice for Canada's regions" rather than act like a partisan sandbox.

Perhaps it could if (a) everyone were buying the premise and (b) this new independence did not have the effect of making the Senate even less accountable than it was prior to 2014.

That was the year Trudeau, then leader of the third party, dumped all Liberal senators from the Liberal caucus. He also pledged to appoint only independents in future. In 2017, he is reaping the political fallout.

There is only one organized party caucus in the Senate: the Tories. With 39 senators, they aren't a majority, but it doesn't matter. As members of the Conservative caucus, working with their MP counterparts, they've stalled or stymied some Liberal legislation, such as Bill C-4, which amended the rules around unionization. They've also used what Harder terms "obstruction" to slow the progress of Bill C-16 on transgender rights. Other agenda items have been delayed, such as a bill on the final wording of the lyrics to O Canada.

In contrast to the Tory senators, the 42 independents and 18 "independent Liberals" (there are also six vacancies) answer to no one. "It's a delicate, diplomatic, political dance (Harder) has to waltz every time there is a bill before us," says independent Liberal Sen. Jim Munson. "The price of independence is there are no guarantees."

Facing a Sisyphean future, Harder recently produced a discussion paper proposing ways to prod senators into moving government business along.

"The Opposition in the Senate has taken advantage of the power vacuum left by the elimination of a government caucus," his paper lamented. "Rather than occupy the vacuum with substance and policy, it has too often filled it with time-wasting. Without a government caucus to counter the Opposition's obstruction, the Conservative Party of Canada practically has free rein to delay, delay, and delay further."

Yup. That's right.

"The evolving Senate must reconcile its practices and procedures with its increasing independence," he continued.

Must it? Says who? Well, tradition. By convention, "government legislation, mandated by Canadians who cast ballots, must be studied and dealt with in a timely fashion," former Tory senator Hugh Segal wrote in the Ottawa Citizen.

This isn't the first time a government holding elected power has faced a Senate whose majority was not of that party. What's different today is that every senator except the Tories is beholden to no one.

Conservative senators are at least minimally accountable, because the party they believe in must win seats in the other chamber. Misbehaviour can damage the party's chances. It's why Ambrose removed Sen. Lynn Beyak from the Senate Aboriginal People's committee.

Conservative Sen. Bob Runciman believes success in the newly anarchic Senate will depend on Harder's ability to build relationships in all camps. "At the end of the day, they have a majority government," he notes. "Government legislation will ultimately carry the day." If Harder can persuade everyone to play nice, that is. No pressure.

"The Senate is independent," Trudeau recently told a reporter who asked his views on Beyak. You bet it is. And democratic too.

cspencer@postmedia.com

Follow this link:
Democracy loses when senators independent - Shoreline Beacon