Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTONDemocrats are resorting to a well-worn tactic for their plan to expand the child tax credit: Push for a short-term policy, then highlight the consequences of letting it expire as scheduled.

The expansion of the credit would send money to households, increasing the benefit to $3,000 a child from $2,000 while adding a $600 bonus for children under age 6. It is a key piece of the $1.9 trillion pandemic-relief plan that the House passed on Saturday and that the Senate will consider this week.

Advocates say the bill would cut child poverty in half. But that larger credit is scheduled to last only through 2021, and its backers are already warning what will happen if it expires and urging a permanent extension.

Were really confident that Congress is not going to want to double the child poverty rate in this country, Sen. Michael Bennet (D., Colo.) told reporters last week.

Once the larger credit is in place, it wont go away, regardless of the Dec. 31 expiration date, predicted Brian Riedl, a former Senate GOP aide who is now a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank.

Go here to see the original:
Democrats Seek Temporary Expansion of Child Tax Credit, but Making It Permanent Is Real Goal - The Wall Street Journal

Lyndon Johnson signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Photo: AP/Shutterstock

Until not very long ago, voting rights was a genuinely bipartisan cause. Yes, of course, mostly Democratic southern racists had opposed the original Voting Rights Act of 1965, and their conservative Republican ideological heirs periodically fought its renewal and extension over many years. But as recently as 2006, President George W. Bush signed a 25-year extension of the VRA without a lot of controversy. This report from NBC News on the occasion describes a different Republican Party from the one we have today:

The Republican-controlled Congress, eager to improve its standing with minorities ahead of the November elections, pushed the bill through even though key provisions were not set to expire until next year.

The right of ordinary men and women to determine their own political future lies at the heart of the American experiment, Bush said. He said the Voting Rights Act proposed and signed by then-President Lyndon Johnson in 1965 broke the segregationist lock on the voting box.

Unfortunately, one of the Supreme Court justices appointed by W., Chief Justice John Roberts, helped put the lock back on the voting box in a 2013 decision that neutered one major safeguard of the Voting Rights Act, Shelby County v. Holder. (The Court junked the preclearance requirement that forced jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to clear proposed voting changes in advance with the Justice Department.) Now another VRA principle, the doctrine that state and local voting practices that result in discrimination are illegal whether or not malicious intent is demonstrated, could fall to a 6-3 conservative majority on the Court this very term.

Meanwhile, the need for federal voting-rights protections has become urgent once again as Republican-controlled state legislatures in and beyond the South race to restrict the franchise, often in ways that harm minority voters who lean Democratic. While some of this reactionary legislation stems from Donald Trumps lies about the impact of voting by mail, pre-Trump efforts to dig multiple potholes on the path to the ballot box (voter-roll purges, voter-ID requirements, and cutbacks on in-person early voting opportunities) are evident as well.

So if the Democratic Party is now the sole party of voting rights, what can it do at the federal level to stop and reverse this tide of voter suppression? The maximum answer is in the legislation Democrats pushed through the House in 2019 and introduced again this year: the For the People Act, aimed for the first time at enshrining the opportunity to vote as a nationally recognized right for all citizens. As The Atlantics Ron Brownstein explained earlier this year, the legislation would systematically address all the roadblocks to full ballot access and fair representation:

For federal elections, it would require every state to do the following: provide online, automatic, and same-day registration; ensure at least 15 days of in-person early voting; provide all voters access to no-excuse, postage-free absentee ballots; and offer drop boxes where they can return those ballots. It would also end gerrymandering by requiring every state to create independent commissions to draw congressional districts; establish a system of public financing for congressional elections; institute new safeguards against foreign interference in elections; and require increased disclosure of the unlimited dark-money campaign spending that was unleashed by the Supreme Courts 2010Citizens Unitedruling, which, likeShelby County,was backed by the Courts conservative majority.

Critical as the For the People Act would be in ensuring that Republican state legislatures dont perpetually enthrone anti-democratic (and anti-Democratic) rule, the newly partisan nature of voting rights as an issue guarantees that it has no chance of surviving a Senate Republican filibuster. And as Democrat Joe Manchin made clear this week, there will not be a Senate Democratic majority for eliminating the filibuster in the immediate future. Yes, Democrats should continue to try to convince Manchin and his fellow reform skeptic, Senator Kyrsten Sinema, that exempting voting-rights legislation from the filibuster is not just a worthy task but one thats essential to their own political survival (not to mention their honor). But as a threshold consideration, perhaps theres a simpler vehicle for both shaming Republicans and urging Democrats to fight efforts to turn back the clock.

That vehicle may be another piece of legislation passed by the House in 2019 and reintroduced this year: the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Put simply, this legislation restores the original structure and scope of the VRA. It creates a new formula for determining jurisdictions that will be subject to the preclearance requirement gutted by Shelby (which basically said the old formula was outmoded) and clarifies that discriminatory results will be grounds for invalidating voting changes. Its a VRA fix in a very limited sense, which should accordingly be acceptable to at least some Republicans.

Without in any way retreating from the principles incorporated in the For the People Act, Democrats could focus initially on the legislation named for Lewis, whose heroic sacrifices in Selma spurred the enactment of the original Voting Rights Act, and simply demand a restoration of the status quo ante. Perhaps that modest goal could drag a few Senate Republicans across the aisle and put pressure on others (in a way Mitch McConnell avoided by refusing to allow the legislation to come to the floor when he was majority leader) or even convince Manchin and Sinema that Republican obstructionism on so basic a matter is intolerable.

But if all else fails, a new focus on merely restoring the VRA as we knew it the VRA as George W. Bush and other Republicans supported would expose how far the GOP has fallen toward the disreputable precedents set by racists in both parties. Todays Republicans shouldnt be allowed to hide behind opposition to this or that provision in the wide-ranging For the People Act to distract attention from their abandonment of the most minimal guarantees for voting rights.

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

Original post:
Will Democrats Act Like the Party of Voting Rights or Not? - New York Magazine

Not often do you see a political pundit concede a point on television.

This rare event happened Monday night on Fox News hostTucker Carlson's show when he concededCincinnati is one city improved by Democrats.

Carlson was debating former state department official, attorney and Democrat David Tafuri on President JoeBiden'spolicy on the Middle East. The argument led to a critique about struggling American cities.

Carlson asked Tafuri to name one city Democrats have improved in the United States. Tafuri didn't hesitate.

"My hometown of Cincinnati. It's run by Democrats," Tafuri offered.

Carlson voice lightened.

"Huh, it's a pretty nice town I gotta say," he said. "OK. I'll give you Cincinnati. I can't think of any others, I gotta be honest.No, you're absolutely right, that is a nice city."

But Carlson didn't give all the credit to the Democrats by adding, "It's not a very leftwing city."

Mayor John Cranley touted the "Cincinnati miracle" in his 2019 "State of the City" address. The population has inched back above 300,000, according to Census estimates.

"Cincinnati is on the rise and is doing better than any time in my lifetime," Cranley said in 2019. "Insteadof bleeding jobs and people, we are adding more jobs and people."

Cincinnati's city elections are officially nonpartisan. But the three mayors elected since the city began direct elections of mayorsin 2001 have all been Democrats: Charlie Luken, Mark Mallory and Cranley.

Tafuri, 51, a 1988 graduate of Sycamore High School, said he was at first taken aback that Carlson agreed with him. Afrequent guest on Carlson's show, Tafuri told The Enquirer that doesn't happen often.

"He didn't argue with me about that and he argues with me on every other point on his show," Tafuri said.

But then again, Tafuri said he's met people all over the world who think Cincinnati is a jewel. Tafuri has worked as an attorney traveling all over the world and is currently focused on legal work in the Middle East, Africa, South Asia and Latin America, according to his LinkedIn page.

Heworked in the U.S. embassy in Baghdad for the State Department from 2006-2007.

His hometown has only gotten better since he was a teenager growing up in Montgomery, he said.

"When I was growing up in Cincinnati, downtown Cincinnati was a 9-5 city," Tafuri said. "Not much was going on in downtown. Not a lot of people lived there. Now it is a much more bustling city and alive city."

One of Tafuri's longtime friends, former Ohio Democratic Chairman and former Cincinnati City CouncilmanDavid Pepper, said he wasn't surprised by Tafuri's pride in the Queen City.

"He's gone all over the world and done amazing things," Pepper said of Tafuri. "Like a lot of Cincinnati folks, he wears being a Cincinnati native on his sleeve."

He was surprised that Carlson agreed.

"If we can bring people together on that, good job, Cincinnati," Pepper said.

Hamilton County GOP Chairman Alex Triantafilou laughed when he saw the exchange on Monday between Tafuri and Carlson. He's proud of Cincinnati, but it's not because of what the Democrats did.

"As a fan of Cincinnati, I'm happy to see the city get good press," Triantafilou said. "But I feel we could do better. One-third of the council has been indicted. We have runaway spending."

A screenshot of Cincinnati native David Tafuri on Tucker Carlson's show Monday night(Photo: Scott Wartman/The Enquirer)

Read or Share this story: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/03/tucker-carlson-cincinnati-democrats-david-tafuri/6904259002/

Continued here:
'I'll give you Cincinnati.' Sycamore grad convinces Tucker Carlson there's one good city run by Democrats - The Cincinnati Enquirer

House Democrats are engaged in a "cynical ploy" to pass as much of their extreme agenda as they can before next year's midterm elections, formerHouse Speaker Newt Gingrich told "Tucker Carlson Tonight" Wednesday.

"I think ... they'vegiven up on keeping the House, Gingrich explained. "What they're doing is rammingthrough everything they can getdone before they lose in 2022. This is kind of a sprint to radicalism even though it'sgoing to cost, if you look atthese votes ... [they'll]have 30, 40, 50members who are not going to beable to defend them."

Gingrich noted that the last two Democratic presidents, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, both saw their party suffer huge losses in the House in their first midterm election.

"They [Democrats] lost 54 seats [in 1994] and webecame the majority for thefirst time in 40 years," he said."When Obama was elected, they lost 63seats [in 2010]."

"I think the Biden-Harris modelis, 'We're going to lose the Houseanyway, we might as well grabeverything we can while we'vegot power. 'It's astonishing," Gingrich went on.

"Just take the $1.9 trillionpolitical pork bill, which is nota COVID bill.Only 9% of it is COVID.The other 91%is justpolitical pork.That bill has more radicalism in it thanthe eight years ofClinton and the eight years ofObama combined. Just that onevote."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"And you're going to see waveafter wave.I describe it as a flood tide ofradicalism," he added, later claiming that the Democrats' insistence on essentially erasing the U.S.-Mexico bordermakes thoseflooding into the country "Biden's illegals."

"If there's a problem in Texas, it's not with Governor Abbott, it'swith Biden's illegals. We just have to call them [that], these are Biden's illegalscoming into the country [with]nopublic health check," Gingrich said. "Even back in the 1880s we hadpublic-health checkswhen you cameto America."

View post:
Gingrich claims Democrats have 'given up keeping House' in 2022, are 'ramming through everything they can' - Fox News

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) Tennessee capitol hill democrats say a House bill to remove Nashville Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle is equivalent to legislative blackmail.

The bill, sponsored by Rutherford County Republican Tim Rudd, is gaining attention after he said Chancellor Lyle violated her oath.

She interfered in our election, she did not throw out state law, she tried to rewrite state law, and a judge cant do that, said Rep. Tim Rudd.

The legislation will authorize the Speaker of the House of Representatives to appoint a committee to meet with a like committee from the Senate to consider the removal of Lyle from the Office of Chancellor of the Twentieth Judicial District by the Tennessee General Assembly.

She tried to have mass available absentee balloting without the approval of the state legislature, and only the state legislature can write election laws, said Rudd.

The Murfreesboro Republican is leading the charge targeting Chancellor Lyle, who was appointed by Republican Governor Don Sundquist in 1996, for an August 2020 injunction allowing for more people to qualify to vote absentee because of COVID-19.

What the Republican political operatives who are behind this are saying to our judiciary is if youre a judge, dont do your job and impartially apply the law as Chancellor Lyle did, instead carry out our far-right political agenda, said Davidson County Representative Mike Stewart.

Democrats are striking back accusing Republicans of abuse of power.

They would take that limited power and try to apply it and retaliate politically against a judge that everybody knows is an extraordinary talented and impartial judge, its totally ridiculous, said Stewart.

Chancellor Lyle and the Attorney Generals office had no comment.

Rudd says Democrats are upset because theyre in the minority.

The Democrats are in favor of judges interfering with the legislative [branch] because they cant get their agenda passed, Rudd said. Judges should stay on their side of the line, well stay on ours and respect one another.

Currently, judges can be removed by impeachment for a crime, unfitness for office, and through a judicial conduct review board. There are over 60 House co-sponsors.

Chancellor Lyle also recused herself recently from overseeing Governor Bill Lees BEP education funding lawsuit. Its unclear if it was related to the removal resolution.

Rep. Rudd released a full statement, calling Lyles conduct egregious and grossly unprofessional:

The American representative democracy is deeply dependent on two things: A neutral free press to give citizens unbiased and unopinionated information from which to make their decisions, and a fair and non-partisan judiciary dedicated to upholding the Tennessee State Constitution without legislating from the bench. Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle violated the boundaries between the legislative and judiciary when she attempted to disregard state law and implement her own rules, personal opinions and policies that were in direct contradiction of existing state law. She knew and fully understood the Tennessee General Assembly did not authorize or support mass-mail balloting. The legislature is the only authority in Tennessee that can write laws or hold elections.

TheU.S. Constitutionplainly states The Times, Places and Manner of holdingElectionsfor Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by theLegislaturethereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations (Article I, section 4). The last time I looked, the words Judiciary having the power to hold elections was not in the U.S. Constitution or the Tennessee State Constitution. Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle overstepped her responsibilities and violated her oath. She further threatened state officials with incarceration if they did not break the law by implementing her rules. Her conduct is egregious and grossly unprofessional.

Follow this link:
Democrats say bill to remove Nashville judge is legislative blackmail - wreg.com