Mediaboss Marketing

Instead, he said, national Democratic leaders treated Texas like a piggy bank, raising money from donors who lived there for campaigns in other states. Nobody believed Texas could be won, but it is a different place today, he said.

Indeed, the margins for Republicans have shrunk or stayed the same in presidential elections in Texas over the last decade. In 2012, Republican Senator Mitt Romney won Texas with 57 percent of the vote. In 2016, Donald J. Trump earned 52 percent. Last year, Mr. Trump again won 52 percent.

Democratic spending has at the same time grown over the last several cycles: While about $75 million went to Democratic candidates in the state in 2016, roughly $213 million went to Democratic candidates in 2020. That 2020 number was still dwarfed by the $388 million spent on Republican candidates, according to Open Secrets, which tracks political spending across the country.

Because of Texas size, both Democrats and Republicans spend more money there than in nearly any other state in the country. But the percentage spent on Democratic candidates is one of the lowest in the country. Roughly 35 percent of all political spending in Texas goes toward Democrats, according to Open Secrets. In Wisconsin, a key swing state in every election, 49 percent goes toward Democrats.

There have been some high-profile attempts at investing in the state before: Michael R. Bloombergs campaign spent several million dollars for Joe Biden during the 2020 presidential primary. In 2014, Battleground Texas, an effort led by former Obama aides, spent millions only to have every Democrat lose in statewide elections.

Rafael Anchia, a Democratic state lawmaker from Dallas who is the chairman of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, said Mr. ORourkes campaign was the only statewide Democratic effort in recent memory with a large enough budget to reach across the state. Mr. Anchia said that like other Texas Democrats, he has made the case to national funders that the state could be competitive.

No longer is Texas considered this fools gold, he said. It has demographics similar to Californias but has been a low-turnout, low-voting state.

Here is the original post:
Why Democrats Say Young Voters Are Crucial to Flipping Texas - The New York Times

House Democrats a few weeks ago released the full text of their big-government socialism $3.5 trillion tax-and-spend package.

Many important elements were already clear. It would recklessly boost federal spending at a time of already high inflation, impose ruinous tax hikes when the post-pandemic economic recovery is still vulnerable, and impose an anti-work welfare state.

However, due to the incredible length of the bill2,465 pages, or about the length of two King James Biblesthere are thousands of separate provisions, far more than can be properly analyzed by legislators or the public.

The following are just 10 of the ridiculous things buried in the bill.

There have been several instances of federal agencies promoting critical race theory and similar far-left agendas to employees. In Section 31056 of the bill, Congress wants to legally mandate such training at the Department of Health and Human Services, the largest nondefense agency.

The idea that an agency focused on administering social benefits programs is a haven of racists ought to be laughable, but apparently House Democrats think otherwise.

Section 70203 of the bill earmarks $200 million for Presidio Trust, a park located in the north end of San Francisco, which is represented by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

The Presidio park contains many scenic views and even a golf course. San Francisco is one of the wealthiest parts of the country and can easily afford to support the park, which makes this handout egregious even without Pelosis involvement.

While the bill contains many tax hikes, it also opens loopholes for some politically favored groups. One of these, Section 138517, would give a tax credit toward compensation for local news journalists.

The secretary of the treasury is required to issue regulations and guidance as are necessary, which could allow the government to determine what counts as news.

Worse, the tax credit is refundable, meaning that a money-losing organization would get a check from Uncle Sam, rather than simply not owing anything. That means its corporate welfare.

That would serve to prop up media organizations that the public doesnt consider valuable enough to support voluntarily. Apparently, we need to be forced to do so.

The activist left insists that housing is a rightand that this supersedes fundamental private property rights, including the ability of property owners to exclude others from squatting or to evict tenants who refuse to honor their rental agreements.

The federal government advanced this notion with its unconstitutional eviction moratorium under the guise of preventing the spread of COVID-19.

Now, Congress wants to fund anti-property activists and regulatory enforcers to the tune of $1.25 billion, including erecting legal hurdles for property owners merely trying to defend their rights in court against delinquent tenants.

Sections 40106 and 40107 might not explicitly require funding for left-leaning groups, but phrases like fair housing organizations can only be reasonably understood to mean exactly that.

The bill seeks to impose a federal takeover of housing policy, both through the construction of massive amounts of public housing and by strong-arming local governments into changing zoning rules.

Bending local communities to the will of Washington elites on the texture of local neighborhoods undermines the ability of families and local governments to determine for themselves the distinctive features of their communities.

While there are many opportunities to reform housing policy, one-size-fits-all federal mandates are the wrong approach. Yet Section 40103 would dedicate $4.5 billion just for bureaucrats at all levels of government to develop and evaluate housing plans.

The private sector could construct tens of thousands of housing units for that amount of money, but this bill would rather tax businesses to pay bureaucrats to think about building houses.

Congress is on the verge of passing a $1 trillion-plus infrastructure package that came together following months of bipartisan negotiations.

The package already moves federal transportation policy solidly to the left, including many new programs relating to social justice and climate.

One of the reasons why some moderate Republicans supported the bill was that President Joe Biden promised not to include more transportation funding in the Democrat-only $3.5 trillion social spending bill, since that would mean the bipartisan negotiations were not a true give-and-take.

However, Sections 110002 through 110012 of the partisan bill contain a total of $26.5 billion for rail, slush funds, and Green New Deal transportation programs.

Thats exactly the double dipping that Biden vowed to avoid, and is yet another reason why Congress should move away from the flawed bipartisan bill before its too late.

The legislation contains trillions of dollars worth of new benefit programs. Normally, the price of a program is understood to include the cost of paying the government employees who administer it, along with any necessary public awareness activity.

Yet this bill is littered with at least $13.3 billion in additional funding specifically for federal bureaucrats and billions more for ad campaigns, on top of the trillions in program costs.

This highlights the true socialist nature of the bill, which is to get as many people as possible dependent on as many government programs as possible, so that the politicians who support those big-government programs can remain in power.

The spending package includes hundreds of billions of dollars to fund the lefts vision of education, including free community college tuition, free school meals, and poorly crafted pre-K programs.

Even smaller education provisions are flawed. Section 20006 of the bill would give $197 million for Grow Your Own, a concept that prioritizes schools hiring teachers that live nearby.

Such staffing decisions are fair game for local districts and school boards, but the federal government should not use taxpayer dollars to micromanage those choices.

One of many housing initiatives in the bill, Section 40105, would give $7.5 billion for a community restoration and revitalization fund.

The money would go toward nebulous concepts, such as creating equitable civic infrastructure and capacity building, which would give bureaucrats the ability to fund housing projects or left-wing activists as they see fit.

Unfortunately, such place-based subsidies fail to help those in need and are often susceptible to inefficient allocation or even corruption.

Most importantly, they do nothing to address underlying causes of poverty; namely, children denied educational choice trapped in underperforming public schools, burdensome business regulations, government mismanagement, or disempowered law enforcement

Sections 80010 and 80011 would provide $2.35 billion for the Federal Citizen Services Fund, which deals with government websites and information technology for the executive branch.

Those already receive annual funding through the appropriations process. Notably, the bill would provide the equivalent of 20 years of funding for the Federal Citizen Services Fund and 25 years of funding for executive branch information technology.

That sort of largesse (at taxpayers expense) demonstrates the complete lack of prioritization that characterizes the legislation.

These ridiculous items are just 10 of the countless reasons why Congress should steer clear of the largest tax-and-spend bill in world history, which would impose real costs on the economy and on American society.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email[emailprotected]and well consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular We Hear You feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

Visit link:
10 Wasteful Items in Democrats' $3.5 Trillion Tax-and-Spend Monstrosity - Daily Signal

The Senate and House committees with jurisdiction have been at odds over spending $300 billion or $494 billion, respectively, on the program for a while, a source familiar with the conversations said. A funding level of $300 billion is likely enough to cover three to four weeks of leave, the source said, but not the 12 weeks that President Joe Biden proposed or that House Ways and Means Chair Richard Neal (D-Mass.) put forth.

Specifics are still in flux as Democrats continue to negotiate a topline. But sources said there are a handful of options being floated, including reducing the length of the benefit; capping how much workers take home; phasing in the program; and giving it an expiration date.

Weve seen a strong commitment to maintain the comprehensiveness of the program; maintaining the eligibility criteria that ensures the most marginalized and vulnerable people can access the program, Vicki Shabo, who studies paid leave at the left-leaning New America, said. Those are both very important components that need to stay. And then theres other dials you could turn to try and scale.

Taking these routes will inevitably decrease the programs reach, and possibly its efficacy. But advocates say that enacting any paid leave policy even one that isn't as comprehensive as first envisioned is preferable to cutting the benefit from the package entirely.

They fear that if lawmakers dont capitalize on the momentum created by the pandemic to pass the program now, it may never happen.

The worst case scenario is the status quo, Kathryn Rand, an economist at the RAND Corporation, said. I know that theres so many ways that this can go wrong, but the worst case scenario is the status quo.

Heres what may be on the policy chopping block in the paid leave plan:

Both Bidens American Families Plan and the House Ways and Means Committee plan would provide all workers with 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave for a wide variety of reasons, including illnesses, injuries, births, caregiving, a family members military deployment and more.

The most effective way to cut down the cost of the program would be to shorten the length of the benefit, experts said. Indeed, this is likely one of the only ways to shave hundreds of billions off the cost, and thus the route lawmakers are most likely to take.

Eight weeks would be the minimum amount of time to see the benefits of a paid leave program and deliver on the economic benefits the Biden administration and congressional Democrats are promising, sources familiar with the Hill negotiations said.

But advocates worry that anything less than 12 weeks would weaken the program, reducing its potential health and economic benefits. Most of the evidence used to draft the House Ways and Means text was based on state paid leave programs, which are typically at least three months.

This is driven by data, Paid Leave for All Director Dawn Huckelbridge said. We know theres a reason why we think three months should be a minimum.

On top of that, much of the broader research on how paid leave can boost the economy and reduce infant deaths is based on 12 weeks of leave. Less than that, experts warn, and some of those financial and health benefits could be minimized.

Ive been in Washington long enough to know that a lot of times, numbers are arbitrary, Lelaine Bigelow, vice president for social impact and congressional relations at the National Partnership for Women and Families, said. But there is so much health evidence to back up the reason why we are fighting for 12 weeks.

Another option to cut the cost of the program is to put a lower cap on monthly benefits. The House plan would provide the average worker with two-thirds of their usual pay on a sliding scale, capped at an estimated $5,200 a month.

The Senate language will likely max out that amount at $4,000 a month, one source familiar with the discussions said.

This would likely bring the cost of the program down by about $50 billion, another source said.

One of the reasons the White House justified pegging its program at $225 billion is because the benefits would be phased in over 10 years, rather than going into effect all at once like the House program. If senators wanted to lower the price tag of their bill, they could take a similar approach.

That could prove problematic for states and employers, however. The House draft includes language that would provide grants to states and employers with their own paid leave programs to help them meet the federal standard. But having the legislation phase in over the course of the decade could make it more difficult for them to come into compliance, given that they'd have to meet various standards staggered over the phase-in period and thus, less likely to take part, a source familiar with the discussions said.

A phase-in could also complicate matters for workers, the source pointed out. Americans dealing with an illness or injury could end up putting off treatment until the next stage of the program so they can receive more robust benefits.

Lastly, any phase-in would mean the programs funding would be heavily weighted toward the last year because that's when the full benefits would take effect. An unofficial CBO estimate pegged the last year of Bidens 10-year phase-in at about $90 billion alone, a source familiar with the conversations said. If thats the case, then the nine preceding years would need to be much less robust spending-wise.

Perhaps one of the most straightforward ways to lower the cost of a paid leave program would be to slap on an expiration date either after the 10 years proposed by the Biden administration, or even sooner.

Why not look at a five-year plan? Cut it in half? Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.) said in an interview. All ships sail, and weve gotten the job done.

Temporary isn't always temporary in Washington. Eliminating a benefit like paid leave would be politically difficult, if not impossible, after a decade.

But having a set end-date for the benefit could discourage state and employer participation, one source said, because they would be setting up complex and expensive programs just to lose federal funding if and when it ends.

"For President Bidens legacy, its important to make these longer-term investments and not have short-term cliffs, Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), who leads the centrist New Democrat Coalition, said. "We need to make sure people have certainty."

Read the original post:
House, Senate Democrats at odds over whether to slash paid leave plan - POLITICO

Despite party control of Congress and the presidency, Democrats are still struggling to enact their agenda. The ballyhooed bipartisan infrastructure deal is stuck in the House, and the sweeping $3.5 trillion reconciliation package has been the source of bitter disputes among party members.

The Biden administration set out with hopes for big, bold change transformational was the word in the winter and into spring. But in autumn, disarray is ubiquitous.

We are not surprised that one-party control has not enabled Democrats to swiftly or easily move their agenda. Our research shows that parties with unified control in Washington routinely fail to enact many of their highest priorities. They are typically forced to accept significant compromises to pass any of their agenda items.

That has been true in every recent case when a party held unified control of government. In 2017, a Republican failure to reach intraparty consensus resulted in a striking collapse punctuated by John McCains thumbs-down of the partys efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare. Later that year, Republican leaders had to scale back their visions for tax reform to pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In 2010, significant disagreements within the Democratic Party undermined and ultimately dashed their plans for a cap-and-trade program to combat climate change. To get the Affordable Care Act across the finish line, many Democrats had to accept a bill that fell short of their aspirations the failure to establish a public insurance option still stings many liberals.

Why do unified majorities in Washington struggle and often fail to enact their agendas? In our research, we tracked the successes and failures of majority parties in Congress on their policy goals from 1985 through 2018 (265 agenda items in total). The study covers the last several periods of unified party government in Washington those that occurred during the presidencies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump.

We find that parties with unified control in Washington since the Clinton years have struggled for two reasons.

The filibuster explains some of the majority parties struggles. Senate rules require most legislation to obtain 60 votes to advance to passage. As a result, minority parties have a chance to either veto or reshape most legislation. Still, even though its a constant source of discussion and debate in todays Washington, we find the filibuster was the cause of only one-third of failed attempts by majority parties to enact their priorities during unified government since 1993.

The second reason is less well appreciated but accounts for the other two-thirds a large majority of failures. Both parties have been, and remain, internally divided on many issues. Parties are often able to hide their disagreements by simply not taking up legislation on issues that evoke significant fissures. But when those issues reflect their campaign promises, majority parties will often forge ahead even in the absence of internal consensus on a plan.

Whether Democratic or Republican, the party with unified control in Washington in recent years has failed on one or more of its highest-priority agenda items because of insufficient unity within its own ranks. In 2017, Republicans failed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act because of the opposition of three Senate Republicans (Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mr. McCain). In 2009-10, Democrats failed to enact a cap-and-trade policy because of spats between coastal Democrats and those representing the interior of the country. In 2005, Republicans failed to reform Social Security despite President Bush making it his top domestic legislative priority because of a lack of consensus in the party about how to proceed. In Mr. Clintons first term, Democrats were never able to unify behind a single plan to enact comprehensive health care reform despite relatively large majorities in both chambers.

What Democrats are trying to do with their Build Back Better effort today is even more difficult than usual. Congress has rarely tried to pass more than one budget reconciliation bill in a two-year session. In March, Democrats used reconciliation to pass the American Rescue Plan on straight party-line votes; theres no precedent for enacting two such ambitious partisan reconciliation bills within a single year. To pass a second sweeping package with razor-thin majorities should be seen as a long shot. The fact that the party is furiously negotiating a pared-down version suggests how much importance it has attached to its success for both electoral and policy reasons.

Parties campaign on ambitious policy proposals. But its much easier to agree to a campaign plank than to rally behind specific legislation. The devil is in the details. If Democrats somehow avoid large-scale agenda failure and pass both the bipartisan infrastructure bill and a sweeping reconciliation bill, they will have done something rare: They will have outdone all their recent predecessors who had single-party control of national government.

James M. Curry, an associate political science professor at the University of Utah, and Frances E. Lee, a professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton, are the authors of The Limits of Party: Congress and Lawmaking in a Polarized Era.

See the original post here:
Opinion | Why Democrats Are Having Trouble in Congress - The New York Times

James Carville is furious. Its the LAW!!! If you do not enforce it, Dems will look as weak as people think they are, he texted me earlier this week. I would ask if we could use DC jail for Bannon.

What has Carville itching to put former President Donald Trumps ex-adviser behind bars? Defiance. The special congressional committee charged with investigating the January 6 insurrection gave former Trump White House officials Steve Bannon, Mark Meadows, Kash Patel, and Dan Scavino until the end of this week to comply with its subpoenas for testimony and records. Bannon has so far refused to cooperate.

Congressional Democrats, who control both chambers and have a majority on the January 6 committee, can ask the House or Senate sergeant-at-arms to arrest Bannon. Yesterday afternoon, though, Representative Bennie Thompson, the Mississippi Democrat who chairs the committee, announced that he will pursue a more moderate path: Next week, the committee will vote on whether to refer Bannon to the Justice Department for potential criminal prosecution.

We fully intend to enforce the subpoenas, Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, who is one of two Republicans on the special committee, assured me. That doesnt come with the snap of a finger, but we will get to the bottom of these questions and pursue all avenues.

Democrats want to uphold norms of interparty civility while also preventing Trump and his buddies from completely undermining democracy. But time is running out. The January 6 committee is one of Congresss last chances to narrate the Capitol riots and the Trump administrations efforts to subvert the peaceful transfer of power. The only way to fight fascism is with narrative, Masha Gessen, the writer and activist, once told me. The select-committee probe presents a real opportunity to do just that.

Enforcing the committees subpoenas isnt a controversial idea, Representative Eric Swalwell of California told me. We must enforce congressional subpoenas not just for holding insurrectionists accountable but to show everyone in America that we all follow the same rules, he said. If Bannon and company are above the law, why wouldnt nonpublic figures toss their lawful subpoenas in the trash?

Perhaps Bannon thinks that the committee wont follow through, or that jail time might martyr him. Hes dodged consequences for alleged misconduct before. Last year, he faced prison for his role in the We Build the Wall scheme, which prosecutors said was fraudulent, but Trump granted him an 11th-hour pardon. At least hes had some time to think about what he might have to pack.

Read: Republicans refuse to reckon with January 6

The committee had hoped to depose Bannon, Meadows, Patel, and Scavino this week, according to lawmakers, but some members of that group have been more cooperative than others. While Mr. Meadows and Mr. Patel are, so far, engaging with the Select Committee, Mr. Bannon has indicated that he will try to hide behind vague references to privileges of the former President, Representative Liz Cheney, a Wyoming Republican, wrote in a joint statement with Thompson.

Bannon seems likely to continue resisting his subpoena. The executive privileges belong to President Trump, and we must accept his direction and honor his invocation of executive privilege Mr. Bannon is legally unable to comply with your subpoena requests for documents and testimony, Bannons attorney, Robert Costello, wrote in a letter to the committee earlier this month. Bannon hasnt worked in the executive branch since August 18, 2017, more than 1,500 days ago. And Trump is no longer the chief executivehes just some guy playing golf at his country club. The Biden administration has already waived executive privilege for the Trump-era documents that the January 6 commission was seeking.

The committee is in agreement about pursuing criminal referrals for witnesses who refuse to cooperate with their subpoenas. We now have a Justice Department committed both to the rule of law and to the principle that no one is above the law. The January 6 committee will respond with equal swiftness to those who fail to comply, holding them in criminal contempt and referring them to the Justice Department for prosecution, Representative Adam Schiff of California told me.

The problem with enforcing congressional subpoenas, though, is that it pits two of the Democrats priorities against each other. Democrats have been tasked with both upholding democracy and defending constitutional norms. The norm of the past 90 years has been that congressional subpoenas are honored because the people subpoenaed are honorable. That doesnt seem likely to happen here. Still, Congress hasnt jailed a witness since 1934, when it found William P. MacCracken Jr. in contempt for refusing to participate in a Senate investigation into how federal airmail contracts were awarded. MacCracken was taken into custody by the Sergeant at Arms, although rumor has it that he was held at the Willard Hotel, according to the The Washington Post. A criminal referral to the Justice Department would likely move much slower than MacCrackens arrestand could prove easier to fight. If Bannon can delay long enough, he could simply run out the clock, and hope that Democrats lose control of Congress in 2022.

Because the January 6 committee cannot rely on members of Trumpworld acting honorably, it may have to go further, Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, told me. Historically, the enforcement mechanism for congressional subpoenas to executive-branch employees was as much political as it was legal, she explained. In other words, the parties negotiated over the scope of subpoenas, because the political cost of outright defiance was seen as too high. Trump broke that process, convincing his followers that refusing to submit to congressional oversight was a virtue, not a violation of our laws. If Congress cant regain the ability to enforce its subpoenas in the light of a norm-breaking presidency, its oversight abilities will be extinguished.

Read: The Capitol rioters won

Last year, Congress drafted a resolution to be used with noncompliant members of the Trump administration. It was meant to give congressional subpoenas teeth. As a police officer, you see a lot of people who think theyre above the law, Val Demings, one of the sponsors of the resolution, told me. We called them habitual offenders, and the only way to stop them is to hold them accountable. When theres no enforcement mechanism, its no surprise that we see corruption, cover-ups, and contempt towards those of us trying to bring accountability to Washington No one is above the law, up to and including the president of the United States.

Will putting Bannon in jail make him tell the truth about what happened leading up to and on January 6? Dont count on it. Will jail be something Bannon can use for fundraising and publicity? Thats one of his core competencies. But a fight with Bannon over congressional power and criminal referrals, however protracted, could help Democrats too. Drawing more attention to the committees investigation and its high stakes isnt necessarily a bad outcome for those of us who want to preserve democracy. If the January 6 committee can hold widely watched, televised hearings, with or without Bannon, perhaps some of the truth will get through to Americans so far unmoved by what happened early this year. The committees power to convince, rather than its power to punish, will matter most.

Read the rest here:
Democrats Are Ready to Send Steve Bannon to Jail - The Atlantic