Mediaboss Marketing

Federal, state and local law enforcement officers and prosecutors have honored a longstanding practice to assure public safety and the rule of law by enforcing the laws that legislatures enact. In that spirit, Department of Justice policies since the 1980s directed federal prosecutors to charge the most serious readily provable offense, unless justice required otherwise. Its undisputed that this charging practice, applied over the course of several Republican and Democratic administrations in recent decades, contributed to the reduction of violent crime by half between 1991 and 2014.

The Obama administrations Smart on Crime initiative touted by former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in a recent oped in the Washington Post titled Making America scared again wont make us safer undermined those hard-fought gains in public safety, and ushered in significant increases in violent crime. In 2015, violent crime rose 5.6 percentthe greatest increase since 1991and included a shocking 10.8 percent increase in homicide rates. And, although the final numbers for 2016 have not been published, the preliminary data suggests another substantial increase in the violent crime rate.

Among the policies championed by then Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy Attorney General Yates was one that reversed long-standing charging policies and directed federal prosecutors to avoid minimum sentences against drug traffickers, as mandated by Congress, and instead pursue lesser charges. Despite the well-known and deadly violence associated with drug cartels, gangs and their networks, the Holder-Yates policies directed federal prosecutors in certain cases to under-charge drug trafficking cases and avoid triggering statutory minimum penalties by not pressing charges on the actual amount of drugs that traffickers distributed, such as heroin, crack cocaine, and methamphetamine.

Despite the evocative second chance narrative that stirs support among sentencing reformers, law enforcement professionals also know that the people who end up in federal prison work hard to get there.

Changes in federal law enforcement policy can ripple through communities across the country and affect their safety. Smart on Crime was part of a larger policy shift within the Obama administration from drug abstinence and accountability to drug acceptance and victimization. Since its inception, correlative increases in drug abuse, overdose deaths and violent crime have had a devastating impact on every community, regardless of sex or demographics. The reduced charging and sentencing of thousands of drug traffickers and their early release from prison - all hallmarks of the Holder-Yates policies of the Obama years have begun to leave their devastating mark downstream on the safety of communities across the nation. The surge in violent crime should not be surprising. Drug trafficking by its very nature, is a violent crime.

Take the recent account of Michael Bell, a former federally-convicted methamphetamine dealer who, when facing new state charges in Tennessee for kidnapping and domestic assault, shot two sheriffs deputies during a court proceeding. Bell would have still been in federal prison had he not been released in 2015, three years earlier than scheduled, because of the across-the-board sentencing reductions prior administration leaders pushed the U.S. Sentencing Commission to impose.

Not surprisingly, those former officials continue to use the term low level, non-violent offender to promote a sanitized narrative of drug trafficking for profit. Law enforcement professionals know that drug trafficking enterprises are comprised of integrated networks of street corner dealers, mid-level traffickers, distributors, producers and cartel leaders, whose collective efforts inherently rely on violence and have contributed to the deaths of over 50,000 Americans last year in drug overdoses alone.

Despite the evocative second chance narrative that stirs support among sentencing reformers, law enforcement professionals also know that the people who end up in federal prison work hard to get there. Few offenders go to prison for their first offense, or even the second or third. Many of the people who end up in federal prison have committed violent crimes, are members of drug trafficking and criminal organizations or simply have chosen to continue to disregard our laws. Because the majority of criminals admit their guilt, plea bargaining involves the dismissal or reduction of related charges, which greatly reduces the criminal histories and sentences of countless criminals. That means the numbers and types of crimes for which many of them are arrested, but never charged or convicted, are incalculable. Criminals are committing thousands of crimes and violent acts against our citizens for which they are never held accountable.

Seeking justice and keeping the peace, it is federal law enforcement agencies and their state and local partners who will strive to enforce the laws that Congress enacted to protect our country and its citizens. The surest way to preserve public safety is to honor the laws the people have passed and to enforce them to the fullest.

Lawrence J. Leiser is president of the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys. Nathan Catura is president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. Bob Bushman is president of the National Narcotics Officers Associations Coalition. Al Regnery is chairman of the Law Enforcement Action Network. Ron Hosko is president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund.Harold Eavenson is President of the National Sheriffs Association.Larry Langberg is President of the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI.

Read the original:
Law Enforcement leaders: How smart was Obama's 'Smart on Crime' initiative? Not very - Fox News

Getting elected as a third-party candidate is no easy feat in the United States.

In fact, the deck is so stacked against alternative candidates courtesy of gerrymandered voting districts that favor one of the major parties, ballot access laws that make it impossible for third parties to gain momentum with each passing election cycle, or public debates that only invite Democrats and Republicans to participate that it is practically impossible.

But the Libertarian Party has created a model to bypass this hurdle, and it is working out swimmingly for them at the moment. Since the 2016 election, an increasing number of elected legislators have switched their official party affiliation from one of the major parties to Libertarian.

ALSO READ:The 2016 Elections Biggest Winner: Gary Johnson and The Libertarian Party?

It all started with Nebraska State Senator Laura Ebke. Ebke, an elected Republican, became increasingly disenfranchised with the trajectory of her party.

I got frustrated with some of my colleagues who dont recognize civil liberties and dont seem to agree with getting government out of peoples business, she told the Omaha World-Herald.

To demonstrate her frustration, Ebke made the bold move in June 2016: she swapped the R next to her name with an L.

I got frustrated with some of my colleagues who dont recognize civil liberties and dont seem to agree with getting government out of peoples business.

Ebke was the first of many disenfranchised legislators to jettison one of the major parties in favor of the third largest party in the United States.

In the last year, Libertarian Party representation in state legislatures quadrupled. (Bear in mind that there are over 7,000 seats in all state upper and lower houses combined; Libertarians occupy 4 of them. Sadly, this is still more than any other minor party in the United States.)

Owning up to its libertarian motto of live free or die, New Hampshire has become the trendsetter for this mass exodus from mainstream parties to the LP. In the past year, three sitting legislators Reps. Caleb Q. Dyer, Joseph Stallcop, and Brandon Phinney switched their affiliations. Phinney and Dyer were former Republicans, and Stallcop a Democrat.

I was not elected to do the bidding of a political party at the expense of my principles, stated Phinney, who was the most recent to convert.

Establishment partisan politics do nothing to protect the rights of people, but instead only serve to prop up and expand government with arcane plans to irresponsibly spend our money and enact burdensome regulations on businesses, small and large alike. N.H. State Rep. Joseph Stallcop (L)

With a growing caucus and improved access to legislation, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire is poised to enact legislation that reflect the party platform of limited government and strengthened civil liberties, ranging from the abolition of the death penalty to the legalization of recreational marijuana.

So have Libertarians discovered a back door entrance into mainstream politics? The jury is still out if this is a sustainable strategy.

Undoubtedly, the strategy doesnt entail campaigning as one party and then switching parties after the election. Such a bait and switch will only harm the brand.

I dont suggest that people run for office with the purpose of changing parties if theyre elected, Ebke comments in an email interview. If you run with the intention of doing that, I doubt that youre going to get elected in any race of significance.

Ebke suggests the better strategy for the LP is to keep its eyes open for legislators (and other officials) who seem to be libertarian leaning. She suggests that US RepsJustin Amash and Thomas Massie are both prime examples of elected Republicans who might be prime targets for such a conversion on the national level.

If candidates remain true to the core principles that got them elected in the first place, they can easily make the case that partisan politics are secondaryespecially when those politics are tied to the toxic partisanship of Washington D.C.

Whether or not this strategy is effective will be realized during re-election season. These third party candidates now face a series of new challenges running outside of the mainstream parties. Making the switch to a smaller party means decreased access to the major party funds often needed for re-election.

Ebke is in the midst of fundraising for her re-election, and is thriving on small donations from grassroots donors, since financial support for candidates from her party is minimal. She encourages supporters donors, voters, and state party leaders to be prepared and committed to backing and helping this group of legislators.

And let me be clear helping a candidate is not just about being an internet warrior, Ebke adds. Its about knocking on doors, walking in parades, donating money, and phone banking. If the Party politically abandons those who move in their direction, people will quit moving that way.

The Libertarian Party is often perceived to be an ideologically-driven organization. However, with the nomination of candidates like Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, who often strayed away from party orthodoxy, the ideology that once founded the party appears less rigid, attracting more independent and unaffiliated voters than previous elections.

If the Party politically abandons those who move in their direction, people will quit moving that way.

A party that is successful will be a big tent, adds Ebke. If the Libertarian Party can be tolerant of those who are generally libertarian-minded, but might not agree on every detail, I think its got great potential for growth.

Keeping an open ear to disaffected partisans, who share a common ground on various issues, is the first step in a meaningful and persuasive conversation one in whichall third parties should engage.

Read the original here:
Libertarian Takeover: More Lawmakers Are Ditching The Major Parties - IVN News

The Republicans' time-crunched effort to pass a health-care bill is hitting a lot of resistance in the Senate. The Post's Paige Cunningham explains five key reasons the party is struggling to move their plan forward. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

THE MORNING PLUM:

With the Republican campaign to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act now set to enter its final, frenzied push, the Indianapolis Star reports that the Indiana GOP attempted a stunt that was supposed to provide Republicans with more ammunition against the law. But the stunt went awry:

TheIndiana Republican Partyposed aquestion to Facebook on Monday: Whats your Obamacare horror story? Let us know.

The responses were unexpected.

My sister finally has access to affordable quality care and treatment for her diabetes.

My fathers small business was able to insure its employees for the first time ever. #thanksObama

Love Obamacare!

The only horror in the story is that Republicans might take it away.

By 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, the Indiana GOPs postcollected more than 1,500 comments, the vast majority in support of Obamacare.

As David Nather points out, this reveals that the energy in this battle right now is on the side of those who want to save the Affordable Care Act. But, while the rate of pro-ACA postings should obviously not be taken as a scientific indicator of public opinion, this episode also neatly captures another larger truth about whyit is proving so hard for Republicans to repeal the law: It has helped untold numbers of people, and the GOP bill would largely reverse that.

This is admittedly a simple and obvious point, yet the extraordinary lengths to which Republicans are going to obscure this basic reality continue to elude sufficient recognition. If you think about it, pretty much every major lie that President Trump and Republicans are telling right now to get their repeal-and-replace bill passed is designed to cover it up.

The Washington Post and the New York Times have published two excellent pieces that debunk most of the leading GOP lies and distortions of the moment on health care. The Post piece looks at a series of White House claims. They include exaggerated assertions about Obamacare premium hikes (that dont take into account subsidies that ease costs for lower-income people) and gamed statisticsabout the number covered by the ACA (that dont take into account the enormous coverage gains achieved by the Medicaid expansion). Most insultingly of all, the White House is criticizing Obamacare because 29 million Americans currently remain uncovered. The spectacularly dumb argument here is actually that Obamacare is failing because it hasnt succeeded in achieving universal coverage, so we should embrace a GOP bill thatwould leave nearly 50 million uncovered in 10 years.

Meanwhile, the Times piece looks at a bunch of claims by congressional Republicans. Among them: The dopey, dissembling, nonsensical assertions that the GOP bill somehow keeps the Medicaid expansion and that Medicaid spending actually goes up (the GOP bill phases out the ACAs federal contributions to the expansion and dramatically cuts Medicaid spending relative to current law, which would leave 15 million fewer covered by that program). And some Republicans are actually blaming Obamacare for the fact that some remain uncovered by the Medicaid expansion in states where GOP governors didnt opt into it.

All of these lies and distortions, in one way or another, are meant to obscure two basic realities: The ACA, for all its problems, is actually helping millions and millions of people, and the GOP bill would undo much of those gains.This would not be necessary, if Republicans were willing to forthrightly defend their actual policy goals and the principles and priorities underlying them.

Interestingly, moderate Republican senators are in factacknowledging the priorities embedded in the GOP plan when they criticize it for trying to roll back the help that the ACA is giving to millions and millions of poor people in order to finance huge tax cuts for the rich. But you dont see many congressional Republicans who support the bill admitting to its most basic features, or defending them with an argument as to why its projected consequences would be worth the bills trade-offs. Instead, these realities are buried under piles of horse manure aboutsmooth glide paths and rescue missions and bridges to better health care and soft landings and all the other claims recounted above about how the ACA doesnt do what it actually does and how GOP bill wouldnt actually do what it is intended to do.

* COLLINS: PEOPLE ARE THANKING ME FOR OPPOSING GOP BILL: GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine tells The Post that she was showered with gratitude while walking in a July 4 parade:

I heard, over and over again, encouragement for my stand against the current version of the Senate and House health-care bills. People were thanking me, over and over again. Thank you, Susan! Stay strong, Susan!'

And yet note that even here, Collins is still giving herself wiggle room to support the final bill by claiming she merely opposes the current version.

* GOP SENATORS DUCK JULY 4 PARADES: Interestingly, a number of GOP senators who are under heavy pressure to oppose the health bill skipped local July 4 parades:

Shelley Moore Capito [of West Virginia] released a YouTube message but had no public events for the day. The Republican senator next door in Ohio, Rob Portman, had none either. Nor did the two Republican senators in Iowa. The parades in Colorado proceeded without Senator Cory Gardner.

Note that all of those states opted into the Medicaid expansion, which the GOP bill would phase out. Still, Sens. Capito and Portman have public events in coming days, so watch for those.

* GOP SPLIT OVER HOW TO SOFTEN HEALTH BILL: CNN reports that Republicans will be battling this week over whether to restore one of Obamacares taxes on the rich:

A still looming, very real fight that will be coming when they return: whether to repeal the 3.8% investment tax in Obamacare or not. This is not at all settled, but sources tell CNN this is something that wont be dealt with until Congress returns to Washington.

As Ive reported, restoring this tax would not put a serious dent in the GOP bills coverage loss, and much of its tax relief for the rich would remain. Yet conservatives oppose even this.

* REPUBLICANS LAUNCH HEALTH CARE ADS, WITH A CAVEAT: Politicos Morning Score reports:

The National Republican Senatorial Committee is launching digital ads targeting all 10 Democrats up in states won by President Donald Trump next year linking them to Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and the Democratic push for single-payer health care. The 15-second ads feature Warren saying single-payer is the next step before noting how frequently a Senator votes with Warren before directing viewers to sign a petition against single-payer. The ads are backed by significant statewide buys, and will run throughout recess and the rest of July.

But as Democratic operative Jesse Ferguson points out: Pretty telling that they arent running ads attacking Dems for opposing their health care plan, eh?

* DESPITE TRUMPS BOASTS, AUTO INDUSTRY SLOWS DOWN: The New York Times reports that auto industry sales are slowing and its workforce is shrinking, two trends that are likely to continue:

The decline signals at least a pause in Detroits resurgence from the dark days of the financial crisis, which General Motors and Chrysler survived only through bankruptcy andbailouts. Its happening despite President Trumps promises to pressure automakers to save and create good-paying American factory jobs.

Ignore this Fake News, Trump supporters.Trump will likely save a few isolated jobs somewhere soon and hold a big presser to tout all the winning.

* 44 STATES HAVE REFUSED REQUEST FOR VOTER DATA: CNN tallies it up:

Forty-four states have refused to provide certain types of voter information to the Trump administrations election integrity commission, according to a CNN inquiry to all 50 states.

This might make it more difficult for Trumps voter suppression oops, voter fraud commission to carry out its mission. Sad!

* AND HUGE MAJORITY DISAPPROVES OF TRUMP TWEETS: Amid Trumps latest lunatic tweets, Axios publishes a new Survey Monkey poll findingthat 64 percent of Americans disapprove of Trumps tweeting. But only 38 percent of Republicans disapprove:

Not only do most Republicans approve of his use of Twitter, but asked to describe those tweets, the No. 1 mention among the GOP is truthful, with entertaining in second place.

There you have it.This is why the presidential tweeting will continue.

Read more from the original source:
A GOP stunt backfires, and accidentally reveals a truth Republicans want hidden - Washington Post (blog)

Here's a brewing irony for Senate Republicans: If they have a near-perfect run in 2018 races, they could get close to the coveted filibuster-proof majority of 60 out of 100 seats.

There are 10 Senate Democrats running for reelection in states President Trump won, while Republicans, who currently have a 52-seat majority, only have one or two vulnerable candidates.

But Republicans have struggled to recruit top candidates in these Trump states. Alack of a clear leader is leading to a bunch of lower-tier candidates jumping into the race, which means Republicans could spend the next year in potentially expensive (and, in some cases, divisive) primaries in some key states.

This isn't the end of the world, but it's not a perfect start for a perfect run for Republicans.

It's a trend we noticed in April that is still going on today, with news that Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) will not challenge one of the Democrats' most vulnerable senators up for reelection in 2018, Claire McCaskill (Mo.).

A similar dynamic is playing out in these Trump states where Senate Democrats are trying towin reelection next year, such as:

In Wisconsin, Rep. Sean P. Duffy (R) decided not to run to challenge Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D). There are at least six possible GOP candidates who could try to challenge Baldwin.

[Wisconsin Republicans put Trump over the top. Now they're trying to prove it wasn't a fluke.]

In Indiana, Rep. Susan Brooks (R) decided not to run against Sen. Joe Donnelly (D), possibly the most vulnerable Senate Democrat. Her colleagues, GOP Reps. Luke Messer and Todd Rokita, do look like they'll run, and they've already started attacking each otherin pretty dramatic ways, like accusing the other of planting negative storiesor making unhinged comments.

In Pennsylvania, Rep. Patrick Meehan (R) decided not to run against two-term Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D). Now there are at least four Republicans who have launched campaigns, from state representatives to a real estate developer and an energy executive. Pennsylvania Republicans tell National Journal they'd feel better about the race if either U.S. Reps. Lou Barletta or Mike Kelly decided to run. (Both have said they're thinking about it.)

In West Virginia, a state Trump won by more than 40 (!) points, U.S. GOP Rep. Evan Jenkins is running to try to unseat Sen. Joe Manchin III (D). But a super PAC recently jumped into the race in favor of likely GOP candidate Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and attacked Jenkins as a Manchin mini me.

In Ohio, state Treasurer Josh Mandel (R) is the leading candidate to challenge two-term Sen. Sherrod Brown (D). But a wealthy investment banker and GOP donordecided to run, too.

And Montana Republicans lost their top recruit, Ryan Zinke, after Trump picked him to be his interior secretary. Attorney General Tim Fox (R) also said no thanks to challenging two-term Sen. Jon Tester (D), which has left the state auditor as the biggest name among half a dozen potential candidates.

Finally, in North Dakota, Republicans don't have a candidate yet to challenge Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D), another state Trump won by double digits (20 points).

Basically, Democratic operatives point out, there are Republican primaries in nearly every competitive Senate race right now.

What's going on here? A few things:

In many of these states, if the Democrat could be unseated, it's possible Republicans could hold the seat for a long time. And the more likely your party is to win a race, the more likely on-the-fence candidates are to jump in.

But that doesn't explain why some top recruits in these states said no. Everyone has different reasons (Duffy in Wisconsin has eight kids, Zinke in Montana took a Cabinet appointment instead). But if any of these races were an easy win, you'd think more experienced politicians would say yes to getting in.

That more haven't suggests:

1) It's not going to be as easy as the numbers suggest to take down some of these Senate Democrats, many of whom won tough races in 2012 in red-leaning states and have been in office for almost a dozen years.

2) There could be a Trump factor weighing heavily against Republicans' calculations. History tells us the party in power generally loses seats in the next congressional midterm; more so if the president is unpopular. And pretty much since he took office, Trump has been the least-popular president in modern times.

3) The longer Republicans in Congress go without a legislative win, the harder it is for them to sell their candidacy on a state level. Republicans need to pass a health-care bill they can sell. They'd like to get tax reform done, too. Right now, they have not doneany of that.

4) A few closer-than-expected special elections in Georgia, Kansas and Montana for Republicansraise the possibility that the Democrats' base is fired up in a way it wasn't in past congressional elections. (Though Republicans won all of the elections.)

November 2018 is still a year-and-a-half away, so there's no rule that Senate candidates have to get in right now. And primaries aren't the end of the world; sometimes they make the candidates who emerge stronger.

Plus, Republicans argue, Democrats don't have especially stellar recruits in their two key races. U.S. Rep. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) just won a congressional seat in Nevada and is going to challenge Republican Sen. Dean Heller; Democrats have no one in Arizona to challenge Republican Sen. Jeff Flake.

But since we're going to spend the next 489 days trying to assess which opposing force is stronger in the 2018 Senate midterms Senate Democrats' vulnerability in Trump statesor Trump's unpopularity let's plant an early flag and say that, so far, Trump's unpopularity appears to be weighing on Senate Republicans.

Read the original post:
Do Senate Republicans have a Trump recruiting problem? (Part 2) - Washington Post

Assembly Republicans say the prospect of iPhone maker Foxconn bringing as many as 10,000 jobs to Wisconsin is among the issues in the states current budget standoff which could affect funding for a freeway project south of Milwaukee, where the company reportedly is eyeing building sites.

Assembly GOP leaders, in a memo made public Wednesday, also urge business groups to offer their own ideas to resolve the impasse over the states next transportation budget.

In a section of the memo called Effect of Delays on Economic Development, Assembly Republicans say Foxconn has indicated its desire to locate in southeastern Wisconsin with up to 10,000 jobs.

That marks the first time high-level state officials have publicly acknowledged the possibility of Foxconn, a Taiwanese iPhone maker, locating in the state.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has reported that Foxconn has inquired about building sites in Pleasant Prairie. The partially completed Interstate 94 North-South project runs through that area, running from the Illinois state line to the Milwaukee area.

Gov. Scott Walkers budget proposal would provide $31 million for the project in the next two years, far less than the nearly $270 million that would be needed to keep the project on its current construction schedule.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, said in a brief interview Wednesday that he has not talked directly to Foxconn officials. But Vos said there are economic development programs all over the state. The one that everybody seems to say has the most potential, that the president mentioned, is this Foxconn.

President Donald Trump, in a public visit to the Milwaukee area last month, said just backstage we were negotiating with a major, major incredible manufacturer of phones and computers and televisions, and I think theyre going to give (Gov. Scott Walker) a very happy surprise.

Vos said: They (Foxconn) are going to want good access to three things: a favorable tax climate, good workers and a good transportation system.

The one thing thats lagging in the three legs of the stool is finding a way to sufficiently fund our transportation system, Vos said.

The company has discussed spending up to $10 billion in the United States to build iPhones and televisions. Wisconsin and other Midwestern states are under consideration for the location.

The offices of Walker and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, did not immediately respond to requests for comment late Wednesday.

Assembly Republicans last week, in an effort to resolve the state budget impasse, floated the idea of collecting a new fee on heavy trucks in Wisconsin. But a group of conservative state senators and industry groups, including the state business lobby, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, dubbed that idea a nonstarter.

Wednesdays memo from Assembly Republicans urges those groups to offer their own proposals to fund state road projects. Disagreement among statehouse Republicans on that issue is central to the budget debate, causing lawmakers last week to blow past a July 1 deadline to enact a new budget.

Vos said Assembly GOP leaders feel like theyve been negotiating with themselves instead of with Senate leaders and Walker.

To our colleagues in the Senate: Im done putting out ideas for you to reject. So how about if you come up with some ideas and well take a look at those? Vos said.

WMC said Wednesday it welcomes Assembly Republicans offer. The group also said, WMC is pleased that the punitive tax on heavy trucks appears to be dead.

Any discussion of revenue increases must include meaningful reforms to reduce costs and spend our current resources more wisely, said Scott Manley, a spokesman for the group.

Continued here:
Assembly Republicans: iPhone manufacturer eying Wisconsin for plant site linked to state budget debate - Madison.com