Mediaboss Marketing

A bitterly divided Senate on Monday confirmed Steven Mnuchin as treasury secretary despite strong objections by Democrats that the former banker ran a "foreclosure machine" when he headed OneWest Bank.

Mnuchin was sworn in Monday night in the Oval Office, where President Donald Trump said Americans should know that "our nation's financial system is truly in great hands"

Trump hailed Mnuchin as "a financial legend with an incredible track record of success." He said Mnuchin had spent his entire career making money in the private sector and now will go to work on behalf of the American taxpayer.

Republicans said Mnuchin's long tenure in finance makes him qualified to run the department, which will play a major role in developing economic policy under President Donald Trump.

"He has experience managing large and complicated private-sector enterprises and in negotiating difficult compromises and making tough decisions and being accountable for those decisions," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Finance Committee.

Votes on Trump's Cabinet picks have exposed deep partisan divisions in the Republican-controlled Senate, with many of the nominees approved by mostly party-line votes.

The vote on Mnuchin followed the same pattern. He was confirmed by a mostly party-line vote of 53-47. Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia joined the Republicans.

The Senate also confirmed a less divisive nominee Monday evening, physician David Shulkin, to be secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The vote was unanimous.

Like others in Trump's Cabinet, Mnuchin is a wealthy businessman. He is a former top executive at Goldman Sachs and served as finance chairman for Trump's presidential campaign.

As Treasury secretary, Mnuchin is expected to play a key role in Republican efforts to overhaul the nation's tax code for the first time in three decades. Trump has promised to unveil a proposal in the coming weeks.

Mnuchin will also be in charge of imposing economic sanctions on foreign governments and individuals, including Russia.

The president, who has known Mnuchin for years, said his longtime friend will help make the U.S. a "jobs magnet."

"He'll work 24 hours a day, I know him. He'll work 28 hours a day if they give him the extra four hours," he said.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Mnuchin "is smart, he's capable, and he's got impressive private-sector experience."

Democrats complained that Mnuchin made much of his fortune by foreclosing on families during the financial crisis.

In 2009, Mnuchin assembled a group of investors to buy the failed IndyMac bank, whose collapse the year before was the second biggest bank failure of the financial crisis. He renamed it OneWest and turned it around, selling it for a handsome profit in 2014.

"Mr. Mnuchin has made his career profiting from the misfortunes of working people," said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich. "OneWest was notorious for taking an especially aggressive role in foreclosing on struggling homeowners."

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said, "I simply cannot forgive somebody who took a look at that banking crisis and took a look at the pain that Wall Street had sent in a wave across all of America, and thought, 'Ah, there's a great new way to make money, foreclosing on people.'"

Rep. Maxine Waters of California, the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, called Mnuchin "the foreclosure king."

Mnuchin has said he had worked hard during the financial crisis to assist homeowners with refinancing so that they could remain in their homes.

He said his bank had extended more than 100,000 loan modifications to borrowers.

But several Democratic senators raised examples of residents in their states who they said were not treated fairly by OneWest, including elderly homeowners and members of the military.

Democrats also complained that Mnuchin failed to disclose nearly $100 million in assets on forms he filed with the Senate Finance Committee.

In his testimony before the committee, Mnuchin defended his actions while heading OneWest. He said he had worked hard during the financial crisis to assist homeowners with refinancing so that they could remain in their homes.

He told the committee that his bank had extended more than 100,000 loan modifications to borrowers.

Mnuchin called his failure to disclose assets an oversight. After meeting with committee staff Mnuchin amended his disclosure forms and also disclosed his position as director of Dune Capital International in the Cayman Islands, a well-known offshore tax haven.

When pressed by Democrats to explain the omissions, Mnuchin said: "I did not use a Cayman Island entity in any way to avoid taxes for myself. There was no benefit to me."

The Treasury Department is responsible for a wide range of activities, including advising the president on economic and financial issues. The department oversees the IRS, negotiates tax treaties with other countries, imposes economic sanctions against foreign governments and individuals, and targets the financial networks of terrorist groups and drug cartels.

The department also issues the bonds that finance the government's deficit spending.

Republicans and Democrats praised Shulkin, who is charged with delivering on Trump's campaign promises to fix long-standing problems at Veterans Affairs.

Shulkin, 57, a former Obama administration official, has been the VA's top health official since 2015. He secured the backing of Senate Democrats after pledging at his confirmation hearing to always protect veterans' interests, even if it meant disagreeing at times with Trump.

He has ruled out fully privatizing the agency and says wide-scale firings of VA employees are unnecessary, describing the VA workforce as "the best in health care."

Read more here:
Senate confirms Steve Mnuchin as Treasury secretary over objections by Democrats - Chicago Tribune

If no man is an island, no political party should be an archipelago. Such are the Democrats blue islands in a sea of red.

True, an America becoming younger, better educated, and less white trends Democratic. Thus Democrats have carried the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections, an unprecedented run. But 2016 confirmed that demography writ large does not decree success.

Advertisement

Young people, for example, are often unengaged. Voter suppression laws target minorities and the poor. Above all, political polarization and demographic sorting control the electoral map.

Most obvious is the electoral college. Hillary Clintons 3 million-vote edge was erased by a cluster of less educated whites in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. But the preponderance of red states over blue also affects the Senate, where Idaho and California each elect two senators.

Get This Week in Opinion in your inbox:

Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday.

As for the House, this advantage permits state legislatures two thirds of which are controlled by the GOP to draw congressional districts that tilt Republican. Half those states also have Republican governors; Democrats enjoy this hammerlock in only six. The result? A GOP that won half the votes cast in congressional elections claimed 55 percent of the seats.

But this demographic divide goes deeper. As Paul Taylor shows in his seminal book The Next America, we are increasingly sorted into think-alike communities defined by ethnicity, education, and economic status. And so geography mirrors demography.

Clintons 3 million-vote edge came from but 420 of our 3,100 counties. The space between is best measured by economics. The 16 percent of counties supporting Clinton accounted for 65 percent of our GNP, and their median home price was 60 percent higher than in counties carried by Trump.

Advertisement

These economically ascendant counties, largely urban, are geographically isolated. Hence the archipelago islands of the relatively privileged surrounded by what is, to them, a mare incognitum, in which the less educated and more aggrieved dog paddle to survive.

One recalls the film critic Pauline Kael, who wondered aloud how George McGovern lost when everyone she knew had voted for him. However silly, Kaels observation was a precursor of the wasted vote phenomenon, wherein Democrats roll up huge margins in blue enclaves, only to be thwarted by the tripartite menace of the electoral map, gerrymandering, and demographic sorting.

But this social chasm is graver than elections can measure. As Taylor writes, the GOP skews older, whiter, more religious and more conservative, with a base that is struggling to come to grips with the new racial tapestries, gender norms, and family constellations. By contrast, Democrats tend to be younger, more nonwhite, more liberal, more secular, and more immigrant and LGBT-friendly, prepared to welcome diversity. Alienation follows.

The result, Taylor explains, is that 92 percent of Republicans are to the right of the median Democrat in their core social, economic, and political views, while 94 percent of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican. Moreover, he adds, two-thirds of consistent conservatives and half of consistent liberals say most of their close friends share their political views. Easier to do, he notes, when liberals prefer cities to the small towns and rural areas favored by conservatives.

Our growing economic disparity also aggravates what one could call a despair gap. As reported in The New York Times, a study by the Center for American Progress found a direct correlation between the percentage of underwater homes and counties that voted for Trump. Similarly, a sociology professor at Penn State found that Trump fared better in counties where the mortality rates caused by drugs, alcohol, and suicide were highest. Among many other things, some poisonous, what issued from Trumps America was a desperate and angry cry for help.

The grievous truth is that ever more Americans fear other Americans, whose lives they can no longer imagine, save as the enemies of all they hold dear. And partisan media and social media purveyors of alternative facts fortify these gated communities of the mind.

The GOP must preserve them, lest their residents notice that Trumps populism of false promises and racial animus masks its service to the wealthy. The Democrats road is infinitely harder but potentially more unifying than merely firing up their subgroups while scaring seniors about entitlements. The party must become a credible force for betterment in the lives and minds of more Americans, no matter who or where. Only then will we learn whether politics can help restore a country so fractured and embittered.

Read more:
The Democrats' demographic dilemma - The Boston Globe

State House Sound Bites

Capitol reporter Katie Meyer covers Pennsylvania politics and issues at the Pennsylvania state capitol.

One of the party's biggest projects over the next year will be getting the state's top Democrats--Governor Tom Wolf and US Senator Bob Casey--reelected. (Photo by AP)

(Harrisburg) -- The 2016 general election wasn't too kind to Democrats in the Keystone State.

Not only did the commonwealth go red in the presidential election for the first time since 1988, Republicans gained their biggest majorities in the state House and Senate since the Eisenhower administration.

Now, the beleaguered party is trying to update its message.

The PA Dems just held their annual winter meeting, and in his Keynote address, governor Tom Wolf had one particular overarching message: double down on economics.

State party chairman Marcel Groen said that's going to be key in winning back some of Pennsylvania's longtime blue collar Democrats outside of big cities--many of whom voted for Trump.

"These are areas where people are somewhat socially conservative, so the Republicans try to get us to discuss social issues when we should be talking about economic issues because they're the ones that matter," Groen said.

He conceded that some areas will be more difficult than others.

"In some of the southwest counties, it's going to take a lot more work," he said. "People have lost their jobs. They're scared. So the union affiliation is not as strong as it once was."

However, Groen added that as Trump's administration gets underway, he's actually feeling optimistic.

He said there's been a huge outpouring of grassroots support from Democrats; now the only question is how to best harness that energy.

"I've never seen protests in the street after a president's been elected, regardless of which party.," Groen said. "And those protests seem to be growing. And they're spontaneous--I mean we don't have anything to do with them."

The Democrats' main focus over the next year will be on two races in particular: Governor Tom Wolf and US Senator Bob Casey--the state's top Democrats--are both up for reelection in 2018.

See the rest here:
What's next for Pennsylvania's Democrats? - witf.org

There's a purposely provocative piece in Politico magazine this week that aims to make the case that Hillary Clinton is going to run for president for a third time in 2020. Citing the scaling back of the Clinton Global Initiative and her plans to write a seventh book as evidence, Matt Latimer concludes: Yes, barring some calamity, Clinton is running. And this brave columnist will go one step further. Not only will Clinton run again, she has an excellent shot at getting the Democratic Party nomination again.

Wrong. And not just wrong on Clinton running again. But wrong on the fact that if she runs she could or would have the inside track on the Democratic nomination.

Let's take it piece by piece.

First, the idea that Clinton is angling to run again.

Ask yourself a simple question: Why?

Clinton has now lost twice in runs for the White House. And they were defeats of the devastating variety.

In 2008, Clinton was not only seen as the clear favorite but, up until December 2007, it looked like she would cruise to the nomination as then-Sen. Barack Obama struggled to energize his supporters. Fast forward a few months and it was clear that Clinton was going to lose on delegates alone, but she chose to slug it out all the way until June before bowing to the inevitable.

Then came 2016 when Clinton, again, was seen as the clear favorite for not only the Democratic nomination but also the White House. The Democratic field was significantly less talented than eight years prior, but Clinton was unable to put them away, and Bernie Sanders pushed the nomination all the way to the bitter end. In the general election, Clinton was regarded as a massive favorite against Donald Trump who did, literally, the opposite of what every seasoned campaign aide told him to do for the duration of the campaign. He was engulfed by a scandal regarding sexist comments caught by an Access Hollywood mic. She drastically outspent him everywhere. Polling showed she would win easily. And she lost.

One loss like that would be more than enough for most politicians. Two is approaching Greek tragedy levels.

Then there is the fact that Clinton will be 70 this October. She has two young grandchildren. A daughter and son-in-law. A husband. Why commit to spending at least two years more away from your family on an activity that has brought you nothing but heartache for the past decade?

The only possible answer is that Clinton is deeply committed to public service. That she promised not to fade away in her concession speech in November 2016.

I'd argue there are lots of ways that someone as high-profile as Clinton could remain relevant to the country and her party without running again. National spokeswoman. Fundraiser. Policy maven. Key endorser.

Which brings me to the second point: If Clinton showed signs that she truly is interested in running, Democrats should make very clear that they aren't interested.

Clinton ran two national campaigns. In each, she looked on paper to be a sure thing. In each, she didn't win. Why? Because there was something about her that people didn't like or trust. Her email problems in this past campaign exacerbated that problem, to be sure, but there was always an undercurrent of distrust surrounding her.

It's possible that as the Trump presidency continues, there will be buyer's remorse that benefits Clinton. I wouldn't be surprised if there is polling some time in the next few months that shows Clinton's popularity surging even as Trump's continues to sink.

But what we know about politics is that the perceptions people have of politicians rarely change all that much. Mitt Romney, had he run again in 2016, would have been saddled with the out of touch rich guy label he had to wear in 2012. John F. Kerry, if he had run again in 2008, would be the Swiss-cheese ordering, windsurfing Boston Brahmin.

So, too, with Clinton. The second she started to show interest in running for president again, people would remember all of the things they didn't like about her. The same trust and likability issues would dog her. She would be forced to grapple with perception issues beyond her control to fix. And, as the last two campaigns have proven, Clinton simply lacks the candidate skills and they are significant to have any chance of fundamentally altering the narrative about her. Had she been able to do so, she would have already done it in time for the 2016 race!

Then there is the matter of Trump. While it is, of course, possible that Trump doesn't make it to the point where he stands for a second term, that seems less than likely at the moment. (Trump has already established a 2020 reelection committee and is raising money into it.) And Trump beat Clinton with a simple message: She is the status quo you hate; I am radical change. She's a politician; I'm not. She is of Washington; I hate Washington.

The best way for Democrats to beat Trump, to my mind, is to not allow him to claim the outsider mantle again. Nominating Clinton would do just that. Sure, Trump will have spent four years in Washington by 2020. But Clinton, in the eyes of lots and lots of voters, will never be able to shake the image of being a traditional Washington politician. It's exactly the sort of race Trump wants to run against Washington but needing four more years to truly overhaul it.

The simple fact is that the public has had two chances to elect Hillary Clinton president. Neither time has it done so. You can argue forever about her relative qualifications and how she has worked her entire life to hold that one job. But this is a democracy where the electoral college vote decides who the president is. And twice, the public has chosen someone other than Clinton. That's just the reality.

Clinton should not and I believe will not run again in 2020. But Democrats would be foolish to, again, place all their bets on Clinton. That time has passed.

Some had it good, others had it bad in 2016. However, who had the "worst year" in Washington? (Adriana Usero/The Washington Post)

Read more:
Hillary Clinton should absolutely not run for president in 2020. And Democrats should stop her if she tries. - Washington Post

Democrats are preparingto try and stop President Trump's agenda at all costs. Senate Democrats have voted more and more in unison against Trump's Cabinet nominees, and now there is even talk of an unprecedented filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. It's what the party's base is demanding is right now.

But there is a difference between doing what feels good and whatis strategically sound. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said it well this week: "You've got to pick which ones you're going to fight about; not every pitch has to be swung at."

To which some Democrats quickly respond: What about Republicans?

Republicans, they point out, stood firmly against most anything President Obama did for much of his presidency, and while they didn't unseat him in 2012, they won back the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014, and after 2016 they're in as powerful a position as they ever have been. Call it what you want -- "obstruction" or "principled opposition" -- it seems to have worked out quite well for the GOP.

But that's not a sure sign that it will also work for Democrats.

The reason I say that is because polarization in this country favors Republicans more than Democrats, at least when it comes to Congress. Republicans have something of an inherent advantage in both the House and Senate, and polarization helps reinforce those advantages these days.

Why? There are simply more red states and more red districts. Republicans took over the House and Senate in recent years largely because they knocked off some of the final hangers-on among Democrats in conservative-leaning places. It first happened in the South; then it spread to Appalachia and the Midwest.

Thanks to that trend and the fact that Republicans drew friendly House maps in many key states before the 2012 election, a straight-partisan vote for Congress pretty much ensures a Republican majority.

The 2016 election is a good example of this. Trump, as everyone knows, lost the popular vote by two full points, 48-46. But despite that loss, he actually won 230 out of 435 congressional districts, compared to 205 for Hillary Clinton, according to numbers compiled by Daily Kos Elections. And in the Senate, he won 30 out of 50 states.

So basically, 53 percent of House districts are Republican and 60 out of 100senators hail from red states, according to the 2016 election results (in which the GOP, again, lost the popular vote).

The question from there becomes how much -- and how -- Democrats will need to overcome this inherent disadvantage.

The median House district in this country in the 2016 election was Virginia's 2nd district, which went for Trump by 3.4 points.Democrats hold just five districts that went stronger for Trump than that median district -- a reflection of our polarization and how predictably these districts tend to mirror the national vote. So Democrats would need to win just about every district that went for Clinton or narrowly for Trump.

Republicans also have more districts "in the bag," so to speak. Trump won 186 districts by double digits, compared to 171 for Clinton. And he won 211 districts by 5 or more points, compared to just 185 for Clinton.

So Trump won more districtsby at least 5 points than Clinton won overall, and he won more districts by 10 points than Clinton won by at least 5. If we consider every district decided by less than 10 points in 2016 to be a battleground, Democrats need to win more than 60 percent of them to win the House majority back. And if you define the battleground more narrowly as every district decided by 5 points or fewer, Democrats need to win 85 percent of them.

What a lot of people don't realize about the Republicans' big wins in 2010 and 2014 is that they didn't really penetrate a whole lot of Democratic territory. Here's what I wrote when there was some chatter about Democrats re-taking the House last year:

...In the big GOP wave of 2014, Republicans only took over four districts that leaned toward Democrats, according to the Cook Political Voting Index (PVI). Were Democrats to win back the House this year, they would likely have to win a dozen or more seats that clearly lean toward Republicans, just by virtue of how friendly the map is to Republicans (both because of natural partisan sorting and gerrymandering). Republicans have an inherent advantage in holdingthe House that serves as essentially a sand dune beating back whatever wave Democrats can produce.

And that's even more the case in the Senate, where Democrats'path back to the majority in 2018 is difficult, to say the least. Given the states that are holding elections, Democrats will need to reelect every Democratic senator in big Trump states like Indiana Missouri, Montana and North Dakota, while also stealing GOP seats in Arizona, Nevada and a heavily Trump state like Nebraska, Tennessee or Texas. Are they really going to do that if they go against everything Trump does?

What got the GOP over the top in 2010 and 2014 was largely nailing down districts and states that, in a strictly partisan world, would have been theirs in the first place. Being partisan in Congress seems to have helped them accomplish that task.

But for Democrats, being completely partisan and playing to their base without expanding the party's appeal has less upside when it comes to winning House and Senate majorities. That's not to say they can't do it -- just that the strategic roadmap Republicans used doesn't necessarily apply to Democrats.

View post:
Why Democrats can't just obstruct their way back into power - Washington Post