Mediaboss Marketing

Florida House Democratic Leader-designate talks about empathy and leadership James Call

Speaker Richard Corcoran's crusade to end state subsidies to businesses is a dagger aimed at the heart of Gov. Rick Scott's job-creating legacy.(Photo: Steve Cannon, AP)

Florida House Democrats find themselves in an unusual situation they matter. Their 41 votes could be the deciding factor in a fierce turf war raging within the ruling Republican Party.

Gov. Rick Scott and Speaker Richard Corcoran quickly escalated a dispute about how to spend .002 percent of the state budget into what is surely going to be remembered as a classic capital slugfest.

Corcoran threw a haymakeron the eve of a vote to kill Enterprise Florida, the states chief business recruiter. Meeting with GOP lawmakers, he showed a video detailing Enterprise Floridas failed projects and calling business incentives corporate welfare.

Scott countered with his own video, in which he depicted Corcoran as a job-killing Tallahassee politician.

At ringside, available to each corner, are House Democrats. Theyve lacked influence in Tallahassee since the lastdecades of the 20th Century. But in the fight over how to build a 21st Century economy, Democrats find themselves wanted and needed by two unlikely suitors, both Scott and Corcoran.

To get a veto proof majority for the budget, you need to come to us, said Rep. Evan Jenne, the Democrats policy chair. Theyre not there. We havent seen the House's final version of the budget, yet.

'A chance to define the party'

Corcoran and his allies recoil at the idea of giving taxpayers dollars to profitable businesses to make money in Florida. That strategy,Scott claims, has made Florida a national leader in job creation.

Its deeply offensive whether you are a Bernie Sanders progressive or a Ted Cruz conservative, said Rep. Paul Renner, R-Palm Coast. He sponsored the House bill that strips millions of dollars spent on tax credits and other incentives Florida provides businesses from the state budget.

We live in a constrained balanced budget world, said Renner. Those $200 million are not spent on public safety, they are not spent on schools, they are not spent on tax relief and other forms of relief that would benefit all businesses and all people.

The House approved what Scott called "job-killing" legislation with an 87-28 vote.

Twenty-two Democrats voted with the Republican majority to cut business incentives from the state budget. Corcoran cant afford to lose more than seven of them to Scotts side. He needs at least 80 votes to block Scott from vetoing a budget without the incentives the governor demands. And Corcoran needs to get an incentives-free budget througha Senate, which at this point seems more aligned with Scott than with the House.

So, a veto-proof vote on the House floor for the budget means a lot, said House Democratic Leader Janet Cruz, D-Tampa.

Former House Democratic Leader Mark Pafford called it a once-in-a-generation opportunity for theminority party.

"Absolutely, it's a chance to define the party. A party that has lost the confidence of its electorate,"said Pafford, who was term-limited out of office in November.

'The governor could go nuclear'

Cruz said the Democrats are taking it one day at a time while the GOP sorts things out. New House rules require representatives to attach their names to local funding requests. Members are asking for more than $2.3 billion requests both Corcoran and Scott can use as leverage to win votes.

The incentives brawl could prolong the session, keepinglawmakers in Tallahassee into June, sweating out a July 1 deadline to produce a budget Scott will sign.

Last week, Scottheld a campaign-style rally at the statehouses front door to pressure the House. A couple of hundred tourism executives and private sectorworkers crowded into the rotunda to show support for using tax dollars to market the state.

Gov. Scotts 'Fighting for Florida Jobs' rally

Backed by Attorney General Pam Bondi, Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam, and Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater they dont have a vote in the dispute but signaled the establishment is with the governor Scott explained Floridas economy was on a roll. He urged his listeners to tell lawmakers not to throw away the tools he used to produce 1.2 million jobs since he took office in 2011.

All these people showed up because they care about jobs in this state. This is about jobs for Florida families, jobs, jobs, jobs, said Scott, speaking to reporters afterward. What I asked everybody to do is go talk to their House member, go talk to their Senator.

Scott is playing hardball. He has taken the fight to the districts of opposing lawmakers.He has also been generous in his praise of lawmakers siding with him on business incentives. At a Tallahassee media event, he singled out Representatives Loranne Ausley and Ramon Alexander, two Democrats who voted with him in the House debate. The two have filed 44 bills requesting more than $100 million for local projects.

"Whoever votes to help me make sure we get more jobs, I'm going to praise them," Scott said. "If you're going to vote to decimate the job market in this state, I'm not going to praise you."

On the other hand, playing with lawmakers' funding requests is a dangerous game. If Corcoran were to promise support for a member's vote against Scott, the maneuver could backfire.

"Thegovernor could go nuclear as well and begin systematically line item vetoes on many different specific lines of spending for particular legislators," said Aubrey Jewett, a University of Central Florida political science professor. "If Gov.Scott aimed most of his line item vetos at opposition House members for instance, but left Senate priorities untouched, it might encourage Senators to give up attempts at overrides."

'No guarantees'

Capitol observers cant remember a similar intra-party fight played out in public in the last 50 years.

Were in uncharted waters, headed to the part of the map where it says there are dragons, said Jenne, the Democrats policy chair. Im worried about a month from now when there are two weeks left and theres no agreement."

Jenne has been around politics much of his life. His father served in the Legislature in the 1970s and Jenne has eight sessions under his belt.

Were not trading votes. Weve told our members to vote for whats best for your constituents," said Jenne. "We're focused on policy.

The Democrats'focus does not necessarily line up with either Scotts pro-business or Corcorans limited-government approach. Rep. Kionne McGhee, D-Miami-Dade, who will follow Cruz as the Democratic Leader in 2019, pledged to keep policy discussions about people, especially the underdog.

We will continue to fight on your behalf, McGhee said in his acceptance speech Monday night when he recalledhis struggle to overcome poverty and undiagnosed dyslexia to become a prosecutor. There is no time for apathy. But there is always room for more empathy for those who truly need our help.

While supporters congratulated McGhee on his selection as the futureleader in the Democrats House office, Cruz stayed focus on the present logjam.

The Speaker made it very clear to us what his priorities were, and we, in turn, made it clear to him what our priorities are, said Cruz.

I will tell you not to make any plans for summer vacation," was the Democratic Leader's response when askedwhether the odds were with Scott or Corcoran.

The session is scheduled to end on May 5. Summer begins June 21. The state needs a budget 10 days later.The Senate has yet to weigh in on the dispute. No Senate bills have been filed to advance Corcorans cause.

Some Senators, including Appropriations Committee Chairman Sen. Jack Latvala, R-Clearwater, have expressed support for incentives.

"Bottom line there are opportunities for the Democrats here," said UCF's Jewett, who like Corcoran once worked for former Speaker Tom Feeney. "But there are no guarantees as to how this will all play out."

Reporter James Call can be reached at jcall@tallahassee.com. Follow on Twitter @CallTallahassee.

LAWMAKERS' WISH LIST

Appropriations Project Bills

Read or Share this story: http://on.tdo.com/2mekKbi

Follow this link:
GOP family feud makes Democrats feel wanted - Tallahassee.com

From MSNBCpoliticsshows to town hall meetings across the country, the overarching issue for the Democratic Partys base since Trumps victoryhas been Russia, often suffocatingattention forother issues.This fixation has persisted even though ithas no chance to sink the Trump presidency unless it is proven that high levels of the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Kremlin to manipulate the outcome of the U.S. election a claim for which absolutely no evidence has thus far been presented.

The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatansare personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected that there are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed.

Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis in reason or evidence.

The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led circus is President Obamas former acting CIA chief Michael Morell. What makes him particularly notable in this context is that Morell was one of Clintons most vocal CIA surrogates. In August, he not only endorsed Clinton in the pages of the New York Times but also became the first high official to explicitly accuse Trump of disloyalty, claiming, In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.

But on Wednesday night, Morell appeared at an intelligence community forum to cast doubt on allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire at all, he said, adding, Theres no little campfire, theres no little candle, theres no spark. And theres a lot of people looking for it.

Obamas former CIA chiefalso cast serious doubt on the credibility of the infamous, explosive dossier originally published by BuzzFeed, saying that its author, Christopher Steele, paid intermediaries to talk to the sources for it.The dossier, he said, doesnt take you anywhere, I dont think.

Morells comments echo the categorical remarks by Obamas top national security official, James Clapper, who told Meet the Press last week that during the time he was Obamas DNI,he saw no evidenceto support claims of a Trump/Russia conspiracy. We had no evidence of such collusion, Clapper stated unequivocally. Unlike Morell, who left his official CIA position in 2013 but remains very integrated into the intelligence community, Clapper was Obamas DNI until just seven weeks ago, leaving on January 20.

Perhaps most revealing of all are the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee charged with investigating these matters who recently told BuzzFeed how petrified they are of what the Democratic base will do if they do not find evidence of collusion, as they now suspect will likely be the case. Theres a tangible frustration over what one official called wildly inflated expectations surrounding the panels fledgling investigation, BuzzFeeds Ali Watkins wrote.

Moreover, several committee sources grudgingly say, it feels as though the investigation will be seen as a sham if the Senate doesnt find a silver bullet connecting Trump and Russian intelligence operatives. One member told Watkins: I dont think the conclusions are going to meet peoples expectations.

What makes all of this most significant is that officials like Clapper and Morell are trained disinformation agents; Clapper in particular has proven he will lie to advance his interests. Yet even with all the incentive to do so, they are refusing to claim there is evidence of such collusion; in fact, they are expressly urging people to stop thinking it exists. As even the law recognizes, statements thatotherwise lack credibility become more believable when they are ones madeagainst interest.

Media figures have similarly begun trying to tamp down expectations. Ben Smith, the editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed, which published the Steele dossier, published an article yesterday warningthat the Democratic bases expectation of a smoking gun is so strong that Twitter and cable news are full of the theories of what my colleague Charlie Warzel calls the Blue Detectives the lefts new version of Glenn Beck, digital blackboards full of lines and arrows. Smith added: It is also a simple fact that while news of Russian actions on Trumps behalf is clear, hard details of coordination between his aides and Putins havent emerged. And Smithscore warning is this:

Trumps critics last year were horrified at the rise of fake news and the specter of a politics shaped by alternative facts, predominantly on the right. They need to be careful now not to succumb to the same delusional temptations as their political adversaries, and not to sink into a filter bubble which, after all, draws its strength not from conservative or progressive politics but from human nature.

And those of us covering the story and the stew of real information, fantasy, and now forgery around it need to continue to report and think clearly about what we know and what we dont, and to resist the sugar high that comes with telling people exactly what they want to hear.

For so long, Democrats demonized and smearedanyone trying to inject basic reason, rationality, and skepticism into this Trump/Russia discourse by labeling them all Kremlin agents and Putin lovers. Just this week, the Center for American Progress released a report using the language of treason to announce the existence of a Fifth Column in the U.S. that serves Russia (similar to Andrew Sullivans notorious 2001 decree that anyone opposing the war on terror composed an anti-American Fifth Column), while John McCain listened to Rand Paul express doubts about the wisdom of NATO further expanding to include Montenegro and then promptly announced: Paul is working for Vladimir Putin.

But with serious doubts and fears now emerging about what the Democratic base has been led to believebyself-interested carnival barkers and partisan hacks, there is a sudden, concerted effort to rein in the excesses of this story. With so many people now doing this, it will be increasingly difficult to smear them all as traitors and Russian loyalists, but it may be far too little, too late, given the pitched hysteria that has been deliberately cultivated around these issues for months. Many Democratshave reached the classic stage of deranged conspiracists where evidence that disproves the theory is viewed as further proof of its existence, and those pointing to it are instantly deemed suspect.

A formal, credible investigation into all these questions, where the evidence is publicly disclosed, is still urgently needed. Thats trueprimarily so that conspiracies no longer linger and these questions are resolved by facts rather than agenda-driven anonymous leaks from the CIA and cable news hosts required to feed a partisan mob.

Its certainly possible to envision an indictment of a low-level operative like Carter Page, or the prosecution of someone like Paul Manafort on matters unrelated to hacking, but the silver bullet that Democrats have been led to expect will sink Trump appears further away than ever.

But given the way these Russia conspiracies have drowned out other critical issues being virtually ignored under the Trump presidency, its vital that everything be done now to make clear what is based in evidence and what is based in partisan delusions. And most of what the Democratic base has been fed for the last six months by their unhinged stable of media, online, and party leaders hasdecisively fallen into the latter category, as even their own officials are now desperately trying to warn.

View original post here:
Key Democratic Officials Now Warning Base Not to Expect Evidence of Trump/Russia Collusion - The Intercept

Kansas City Star (blog)

Steve Kraske: Kansas Democrats have a new leader who really wanted the job Kansas City Star (blog) So let's all say hello to John Gibson, who earned his political stripes as chairman of the Johnson County Democratic Party more than a decade ago. He's an MIT grad, so you might reasonably assume that he knows what he has gotten himself into. He works ...

Read the original:
Steve Kraske: Kansas Democrats have a new leader who really wanted the job - Kansas City Star (blog)

President Trump proposed an ambitious budget Thursday morning, calling forsevere cuts across most of the federal government and a major increase in military spending. Itwould be hard to design a planDemocrats are more primed to hate, but -- thoughthe last election left them nearly powerless inCongress -- budget experts say they can probablystop Trump from making the budget blueprint a reality.

And they'll get a bit of help from an Obama-era law to do it.

Democrats have already made their opposition plain:"President Trump has shown that he does not value the future of our children and working families," Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the minority leader in the House, said Thursday. The budget, she said, "fails to recognize that the health of America, the strength of America, does not just depend on our military."

Ordinarily, Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues would have little say over the federal budget. Republicans control both the House and the Senate, and Congress typically begins putting together the government's budget througha process known as reconciliation, which prevents the party in the minority from throwing upa filibuster in the Senate.

President Trump has introduced his budget plan, but that's just the beginning of the appropriations process. The Washington Post's White House economic policy reporter Damian Paletta explains what happens next. (Video: Jenny Starrs/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

There's where the past will come back to bite Trump's effort: In 2011, Congress and former President Obama enacteda strict set of federal spending limits -- the "sequester," as it is called.

As part ofthe deal, which put limits on both militaryand domestic spending, any proposal going beyondthose caps must overcome a potential filibuster in the Senate.

Trump's budget, and it's $54 billion in new defense spending, meets that criteria. "The president has said hes going to undo the military sequester," Trump's budget chief, Mick Mulvaney, told reporters on a conference call Wednesday. "This budget does that."

With 46 seats, not counting the two independent senators who typically join their caucus, Democrats have more than enoughto mount a filibuster. Trump would need their cooperation to enact the budget.

Yet Trump is unlikely to find Democratic senators who would support his budget, whichwould eviscerate public agencies outside of the military.

Trump's proposal would provide more funds for the Pentagon, for public charter schools and for building a wall along the border with Mexico. The presidentwould gut environmental protection and drastically reduce funding for scientific research across the government. Less money would be available to help poor mothers buy food for their families and to help impoverished households heat their homes.

Some Republicans might be opposed as well. Trump's budget does not reduce federal spending, instead shifting expenditures from other agencies to the Pentagon. Libertarians such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and ideologically moderate, fiscally conservativelawmakers such Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) havearguedthe government should spend less and borrow less money.

The legislative branch, not the president, is responsible for the government's budget. Trump will not be able tomake his budget reality without more support from lawmakers.

Apart from the sequester,there is another reason Republicans might not be able toenact Trump's budget this year: Repealing Obamacare could take months.

Republicans are relying on reconciliation to repeal Obamacare without confronting a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. To use reconciliation to instead begin work on a budget, Republican lawmakers would have to start over, scrapping the progress they have made so far on dismantling Obamacare.

Some Republican lawmakers, however, have objected to the legislation that their party has advanced to repeal Obama's reform, and many observers expect the GOP debate over health care to continue through the summer. By then, the start of the federal government's fiscal year for budgeting purposes in October will be approaching, leaving lawmakers little timeto put a new budget in place.

"We're very late here," said William Hoagland, who worked in Congress for decades as an aide to senior Republican lawmakers. "That just doesnt give them a lot of time to go through the process."

Hoagland said it was "terribly unrealistic" to think that Congress would act on Trump's budget.

"This is Bill Hoagland speaking, and I can only say: No, its not realistic," he said.

What is more likely, Hoagland predicted, is that Congress will keep things simple by maintaining the currentlevels of funding for federal agencies, passing what is known as a continuing resolution.

That does not mean that Trump's budget is irrelevant, however. For the first time, the president has had to show how he would deliver on some of the promises he made during the campaign, noted Bill Gale, who served as an economist in President George H.W. Bush's White House.

"The presidents budget proposal matters because its a statement of the administrations priorities and goals," Gale said. "People can look at those numbers and look at their implications and understand more specifically what he is proposing."

For instance, in order to dedicate funds to the wall along the border and to augment the Pentagon's budget, Trump proposes compromising on his other goals. He would make less money available for some infrastructure projects and limit counterterrorism grants for local law enforcement.

The budget, Gale said, "doesn't allow people to hide behind the rhetoric."

Read the original here:
How an Obama-era law could help Democrats block Trump's budget - Washington Post

President Trump ran as a different kind of Republican, putting together a collection of evangelical Christian, rural and working-class voters who felt betrayed by government. He was the outsider, agitating for an agenda that did not promote corporate profits at the expense of workers and vowing, for example, to leave entitlements alone. His vision was nativist, nationalist, protectionist and paternalistic. Big government for the little guy, in other words.

His two biggest initiatives so far health-care reform and his budget tell a vastly different story. This is old-style right-wing politics on steroids. Transfer wealth to the rich via Medicaid cuts for the poor and tax breaks to the rich. Deploy health spending accounts, where 70 percent of money comes from those making more than $100,000.

The budget is even less generous to Trumps base.The Postnoted that the listed of abolished programs included the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which disburses more than $3 billion annually to help heat homes in the winter. It also proposed abolishing the Community Development Block Grant program, which provides roughly $3 billion for targeted projects related to affordable housing, community development and homelessness programs, among other things.

Hisrural supporters dont fare very well:

President Donald Trump has proposed halting funding for rural clean water initiatives and reducing county-level staff, for a 21 percent drop in discretionary spending at the Department of Agriculture (USDA), according to a White House budget document.

The $4.7 billion in cuts would leave USDA with a budget of $17.9 billion after cutting some statistical and rural business services and encouraging private sector conservation planning. Farm groups warned that farmers and rural communities could suffer.The budget proposal would save $498 million by eliminating a rural water and wastewater loan and grant program that helps fund clean water and sewer systems in communities with fewer than 10,000 people.Other areas targeted for cuts include staffing at county-level USDA service centers.

If you are an industrial worker, you might be concerned about a21 percent cut in the Labor Department, which will impact worker safety and training programs.

As one might expect, theAFL-CIOissued a blistering statement from its president, Richard Trumka:

Working people in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin didnt vote for a budget that slashes workforce training and fails to invest in our nations infrastructure.President Trumps proposed budget attempts to balance the budget on the backs of working families. The $54 billion cut to programs that benefit working families is dangerous and destructive. Huge cuts to the departments of Labor, Education and Transportation will make workplaces less safe, put more children at risk and make improving our failing infrastructure much more difficult. The administration can and should do better.

The budget abandons the futureslashing investments in workers, communities, young people, protecting our environment and building democracy.There are major cuts in job training, education, health programs, the environment, the arts and foreign aid. Research programs in science and medicine are slashed. Sixty-two government programs/agencies are slated for elimination.

The budget, like the health-care plan, strikes at the heart of Trumps campaign promises, which did not envision a libertarian evisceration of government. Trump leaves the details to others, but the details undermine his appeal to working-class voters, his core support. Either he never meant to be a different kind of Republican or his team has used his rhetorical routine to mask a budget that is less populist than any other in the modern era. Democrats would be wise to start analyzing the budgets real-world impact quantifyingcuts to each state and to programs that serve people making, say, less than $75,000. What expenses are shifting onto the backs of working-class and middle-class people? What protections are eliminated? This is not going to match up with the beneficent image Trump tried to cultivate.

Trump hired a right-wing Cabinet, so its no surprise a right-wing budget and health-care plan emerged. Democrats would do well to focus on the clash between Trump, protector-of-the-little-guy, and Trump, friend-of-the-rich-and-powerful. The former was simply a sales pitch for the campaign; the reality should be a rude awakening for all those new GOP voters who might be amenable to a true populist economic message from the other party.

See more here:
How Democrats can capitalize on Trump's betrayal of his base - Washington Post (blog)