Mediaboss Marketing

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

In the final 14 hours before the final midnight deadline for advancing Senate bills in the Texas House, Democrats pulled out all the stops Tuesday to keep the body from considering GOP-backed legislation they opposed, spelling death for some of the Senate's priority bills.

The House had on its calendar several of the Senates priorities, including a bill banning social media companies from blocking users because of their viewpoint or their location within Texas, another that would ban local governments from using public funds to pay for lobbyists, and another that would force transgender student athletes to play on sports teams based on their sex assigned at birth instead of their gender identity.

Republicans control all branches of Texas government, and Democrats have been trying to fight back these bills since the beginning of the legislative session in January. The midnight deadline to pass the bills was the minority partys last hope. And though they ended the night with hoarse voices, House Democrats landed a rare victory this session, killing all three of those bills. They ceded one other Senate priority bill, which aims to limit the terms of employment that local governments can require companies offer workers, after successfully attaching some amendments.

The failure of several of the Senate's priorities is likely to continue the rift between the two chambers, which differ on their legislative priorities. Last week, the House took a break from lawmaking for a few days ahead of key legislative deadlines, imperiling Senate priorities, because the Senate was not moving House priority bills on criminal justice and health care.

The House started Tuesday at 10 a.m. with 129 bills on its agenda, setting up a marathon of debating, voting and political maneuvering. Members spent the first half of the day giving final approval to bills the House had initially passed Monday, a usually procedural move that went beyond banking hours Tuesday as Democrats barraged their fellow lawmakers with questions, compliments and tactical procedures to slow down the chambers progress.

The tactics in the House caught the attention of lawmakers in the Senate, whose bills floundered with each passing minute the House Democrats delayed because legislation must get approval in both chambers before becoming law. With plenty of House bills locked up in the upper chamber, the senators also began slowing their progress and ribbing state representatives who visited them during a lunch break.

Senators began making dog puns as Sen. Jos Menndez, D-San Antonio, laid out a House bill that dealt with where pet store owners in large counties get their dogs and cats from, in an effort that targeted puppy mills.

We dont want it to be a dog-eat-dog world, said Sen. Paul Bettencourt, R-Houston.

Menndez called to Rep. Jared Patterson, R-Frisco, the bills author who walked into the chamber, to show him that the Senate was passing House bills.

Itd be nice if we could get some good Senate bills passed as well, Menndez said.

Back in the House, groups of Democratic and Republican lawmakers huddled in different parts of the chamber, planning their strategies for the rest of the day: Democrats to stop bills they opposed, and Republicans to get as many of the bills that theyd worked on over the top.

Outside the chamber, opponents of the bill to restrict the participation of transgender student athletes in school sports held banners that read, Stop SB 29, and chanted, Protect trans kids!

Around 6 p.m. the House began taking up legislation that had been postponed by lawmakers on Tuesday in efforts to make last-minute tweaks or work out deals to ease the passage of those bills through the chamber.

But the tweaking was not done, as lawmakers continued to postpone bills. The bills banning social media content moderation because of viewpoint and the use of local government funds to pay for lobbyists were among those delayed. The social media bill had the backing of Gov. Greg Abbott, who traveled to Tyler to promote it with its author, Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, in March.

Further down the list and therefore in more peril were the measure related to transgender student athletes, which Abbott had also indicated support for, and a bill that would require people seeking an abortion in Texas to consult a state contractor about support services and other available resources before the procedure could be performed. None of those bills ended up receiving a vote.

Near 7 p.m., the House took up Senate Bill 14, a measure banning cities and counties from requiring companies to offer workers benefits or other terms of employment beyond what is already required by state and federal law.

The bill is a revival of a similar measure that died in the 2019 legislative session after some cities implemented paid sick leave requirements for businesses within their boundaries. Supporters said the Senate version would prevent regulatory confusion in a way that helps businesses with locations in multiple Texas cities regain their footing as the economy tries to recover from the pandemics devastating financial effects. But opponents said the Senate version reduces workers access to paid sick leave after theyve been navigating the pandemic for more than a year.

The bill does not apply to municipalities employees or conditions of government contracts. It targets attempts by several Texas cities to mandate benefits for employees. In the past three years, Austin, Dallas and San Antonio passed paid sick leave ordinances, but court rulings have kept them from being enforced.

Democrats, who largely oppose the bill, were attempting to tack on amendments to soften its effect on the large counties where their party holds control of local governments. With each amendment, more time passed and the deadline inched closer.

A little after 9 p.m., a procedural concern was raised about the bill that could have spelled doom for it. After more than two hours, the chamber postponed the debate on it until 10 p.m.

By then, time was running out. Before the bill could be revisited, House lawmakers made surprise moves to postpone debate on the bill restricting transgender student athletes in school sports until 11:30 p.m., leaving it with only 30 minutes to pass before the midnight deadline.

When the House picked up SB 14 again, lawmakers added an amendment by Rep. Rhetta Bowers, D-Garland, that exempted local nondiscrimination ordinances that banned discrimination on the basis of hair texture. Bowers had previously filed the Texas CROWN Act, to prevent race-based hair discrimination that often affects Black Americans in school and in the workplace.

The House then gave the bill its initial approval.

By 11 p.m., the bill that would restrict how governmental entities use public money on outside lobbyists had been killed because the bill's author could not find agreement on it with other lawmakers. The bills dealing with social media companies and transgender student athletes never returned for a hearing.

As the clock ticked towards midnight, the House gallery began to fill with onlookers, including supporters of transgender children who had been advocating against SB 29 all session.

Democratic lawmakers spent the last 15 minutes ostensibly trying to tack on an amendment to a bill about prevailing wage rates, but really just coordinating with one another to run out the clock.

As the clock struck midnight, Democratic lawmakers stood at the front of the chamber waving transgender pride flags and celebrating with onlookers in the gallery.

House Speaker Dade Phelan announced that his desk was clear and the chamber recessed until 9 a.m. Wednesday, when it will take up its final calendar of Senate bills that are largely local or uncontested.

Megan Munce contributed reporting.

Read the original post:
Multiple Senate GOP priorities fail in Texas House after last-ditch effort by Democrats to run out the clock - The Texas Tribune

Recruiters looking to fill positions at OHare International Airport meet with candidates during a job fair at the airport on May 19, 2021 in Chicago, Illinois.

Scott Olson | Getty Images

More than two dozen groups representing U.S. businesses and employers unveiled a new coalition Tuesday to fight against virtually every Democratic plan to raise taxes on self-described "job creators."

The coalition of 28 industry groups, which have locked arms under the name "America's Job Creators for a Strong Recovery," argues that hiking taxes on corporations and other businesses will hamper the U.S. economy in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

The alliance emerges in direct opposition to the Biden administration, which is pushing Congress to pass trillions of dollars in spending on infrastructure and a slew of other projects that will be paid for in large part by raising rates on corporations and the richest Americans.

Organizers told CNBC the coalition has already started to research its counter-messaging efforts nationally. But it has an especially keen eye on Arizona, a competitive purple state with two moderate Democratic senators, Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema, organizers said.

The coalition aims to turn the narrative away from a debate about taxing the rich and the biggest corporations to pay for roads and bridges. The organizers themselves acknowledge that that rhetorical battleground leans strongly in Democrats' favor in public opinion polls.

But the organizers say President Joe Biden's so-far popular infrastructure plan loses support when the focus shifts toward the high level of public spending it will demand, and the taxes on so-called job creators it proposes.

"The record tax hikes that Democrats are seeking to ram through could not come at a worse time for America's job creators who are just beginning to recover from a crippling pandemic," said Eric Hoplin, president and CEO of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, which is leading the new coalition.

"Employers support a smart infrastructure to ensure America's 21st century competitiveness, but it shouldn't be used as a Trojan horse to enact record high taxes on America's individually and family-owned businesses," Hoplin said.

"The pandemic has taxed individually and family owned businesses enough taxing them again while they are still struggling to recover just goes too far," said Chris Smith, executive director of another group called the Main Street Employers Coalition.

"These tax hikes would put the path of the recovery at such risk, so we need to make sure the voice of Main Street is heard loud and clear with the people and places that matter most," Smith said.

The coalition is not yet sharing its fundraising goals but it plans to target numerous key states led by moderate Democratic lawmakers, organizers said.

These are the founding members of the coalition:

See the original post here:
Business groups form coalition to oppose every tax hike proposal by Democrats - CNBC

Democrats are taking the public option for a test drive.

The proposal for a new public insurance plan is enjoying its first signs of life this Congress: Senate health committee chair Patty Murray and House health committee chair Frank Pallone sent a letter on Wednesday to lawmakers, policy experts, patient advocates, and the health care industry asking for input on public option legislation they plan to draft.

The letter, on its own, doesnt do much. Nevertheless, after the public option was excluded from the major policy proposals so far from the Biden White House and will reportedly be left out of the presidents budget, this is the first indication that Democrats are still serious about the idea.

If Democrats do write a bill and try to get it moving through the House and/or Senate, it would be the first real test in more than a decade of how a public option would stand up to political scrutiny.

Republicans, struggling to find an effective message with which to oppose President Joe Biden, would likely jump at the chance to accuse Democrats of wanting the government to take over peoples health care, as they did in the campaign against the Affordable Care Act before their gains in the 2010 midterms. The industry is already aggressively making a case against the expansion of government health care.

But Democrats are moving forward in part because they believe the politics of health care have changed since the ACA debate, when the public option was scuttled because it didnt have enough support in the Senate despite the partys 60-seat supermajority.

The ACA survived Republican repeal attempts in 2017 and is now fairly popular with the American public. The public option polls well with voters, too, enjoying support from more than two-thirds of US adults in a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll. Nearly half of Republicans said they support it; Democrats believe opposing a public option could actually be a tough vote for some of their colleagues across the aisle.

But opinions are not hardened yet, and people might still be persuadable. Policy ideas can appear more popular in the abstract before they become prominent, polarized fights; the evidence that positive or negative messaging can substantially move support for or against Medicare-for-all is a telling example.

Framing a public option as more choice can be effective with some independents and Republicans, academics who have tested public opinion on the issue say. But does that effect last once theres a Republican and business campaign portraying the policy as socialism? Or has the rehabilitation of the ACA, which Democrats think has been driven by meaningful policy successes, eroded the effectiveness of such a message?

That big political question could determine the fate of any future proposal to expand government health care. Wed start to get some idea of the answer if Democrats manage to advance a public option bill this Congress.

This is also a chance for Democrats to home in on a specific plan. As Sarah Kliff and I previously reported, there are several public option proposals floating around Washington. Some would be intentionally limited to select populations; others would be more expansive, with the longer-term goal of enrolling as many Americans as possible.

The Pallone-Murray letter asks for feedback on a number of key policy questions: Who should be eligible for the public option? How much should it pay providers? What benefits should the plan offer?

Expectations should be tempered about whether the public option is going anywhere anytime soon. Democrats are playing it slow, with the proposal thus far excluded from their plans for any budget reconciliation bill that could pass without any Republican votes in the Senate. It might not comport with the rules that restrict what policies can be passed via the reconciliation process. It would also need nearly unanimous support among Democrats to pass, given their thin majorities in the House and Senate. It is easy to imagine a scenario in which a public option bill narrowly passes the House but doesnt clear the Senate.

Still, this step from Pallone and Murray is notable: Two of the top Democrats working on health care are giving the public option a shot.

Read more:
Democrats in Congress want to draft a public option health care plan - Vox.com

Democrats, and activists especially, are tired after four years spent dutifully knocking on doors and begging strangers to please vote. Marianne Burke, a 67-year-old retiree who leads the Democratic group Fairfax Indivisible, has noticed a clear decline in volunteer engagement since Bidens win. In February, she struggled to get group members to help mail postcards reminding Virginians to register to vote, and she had to write hundreds of them herself. She gets it: Theres not this urgency. You dont wake up in the morning and say, My God, whats [Trump] gonna do today? she told me. Im cautiously optimistic that Democrats will rally in time to help Democrats win in November, she added. But it is so nice to not have to constantly worry so I can understand why they wouldnt want to. Michael Zuckerman, a 70-year-old professor at George Washington University, told me hes worried about his fellow Democratic voters. Their work has made a difference, and we need to keep it up, Zuckerman said, after we met at the park for Gooditiss event. Hes volunteered for Democratic candidates since 2016. Weve come very close to losing democracy, and Im not sure were out of the woods.

Read: If Democracy is dying, why are Democrats so complacent?

Some races in Northern Virginia, like Gooditiss, could be close. (Shes running unopposed in next months primary; her Republican opponent, Nick Clemente, is already outraising her.) Republicans also have a chance to win at least a few seats near Richmond and Virginia Beach. At the statewide level, the gubernatorial race between the Republican Glenn Youngkin and a soon-to-be-nominated Democrat could go either way, election analysts told me. (Former Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe is the front-runner.) Youngkin can win if Democratic turnout in November is low, and if he can earn the support of a few of the suburbanites who couldnt stomach Trump.

Persuading them shouldnt be difficult, argues Tom Davis, a former GOP lawmaker from Virginia, because Youngkin, the former CEO of the private-equity firm the Carlyle Group, appeals to suburban sensibilities. Hes [Harvard] business school; hes got an educational pedigree, Davis told me.* He speaks their language. John Chamberlain, a 64-year-old software salesman from Great Falls, in Northern Virginia, is a registered Republican who voted for Biden in 2020. But it was more of a vote against Trump, he told me. I still believe the Democrats are missing something. Chamberlain likes Youngkins business background, and hes considering voting for him over the Democrat in November.

State Democrats plan to defend their progress with suburbanites by talking about Trump and Trumpism as much as possible. At a press conference in Alexandria last week, party leaders underlined the fact that Donald Trump has endorsed Youngkin. They referred to the Virginia Republican Party as the Virginia Trump Party, and warned voters against supporting the Trump-Youngkin agenda. Down the ballot, Gooditis is prepared to defend herself against negative ads by reminding voters of the events of January 6. Its very easy for us to say, Yeah, but they supported the guy who told people to attack the U.S. Capitol. So who are you going to listen to? she said.

Here is the original post:
Virginia Elections Will Test the Democratic Coalition - The Atlantic

Last year, in the midst of a presidential election campaign and a pandemic, the U.S. Postal Service was politicized by President Donald Trump and his administration as had never been done before. Critics accused the postmaster general, Louis DeJoy, of making changes to mail delivery to increase Mr. Trumps chances of re-election, a charge he vehemently denied.

This year, the Postal Service has returned to its traditional role of being the one thing in Washington that Democrats and Republicans can reliably agree on. It is heartening to see lawmakers from both parties lining up behind the Postal Service Reform Act of 2021 legislation introduced in the Senate and House that would help bring the mail into the 21st century.

Its no secret that the rise of email, e-commerce and electronic payments has created an existential crisis for the post office, which has knitted the nation together for more than 245 years. The volume of first-class mail has plummeted. From 2007 to 2020, it declined by 45 percent. Revenue from domestic mail fell 36 percent to $38.7 billion from $60.6 billion over the same period, curtailing the ability of the Postal Service to fund its own operations. A chorus of voices, including this editorial boards, have called for scaling back service in various ways to respond to rising costs and falling demand. More radical critics have called for privatizing mail delivery altogether.

Privatization is a bad idea. The Postal Service is arguably the only government agency that exists in every American neighborhood rural and urban, rich and poor. It has an enviable infrastructure that includes the largest fleet of trucks in the country and the largest number of brick-and-mortar storefronts. It remains among the most trusted and most popular government agencies. Many people depend on the post office to receive lifesaving medications and Social Security checks. Privatizing its functions would squander something valuable that we all share. Any downsizing must be done with great care.

Mr. DeJoys 10-year plan for the agency, announced in March, seeks to address the hemorrhaging of cash in part by raising rates and streamlining service, in some cases cutting back on hours and employees. On Friday the Postal Service announced that a first-class stamp would cost 58 cents, up from 55 cents, starting this summer

Some cutbacks and rate increases are necessary. But what the post office really needs is reimagining. An alliance of more than 80 national organizations, including the American Postal Workers Union, has put out a proposal to use the existing infrastructure in new ways anchoring the expansion of broadband access in rural areas or checking in on elderly and disabled people for whom mail carriers are the only point of daily human contact. The alliances plan also includes expanding the provision of financial services, such as affordable check-cashing, which could be vital in underserved areas. A 2015 report by the Postal Service Office of Inspector General estimates that such services could provide meaningful assistance to 68 million Americans who either dont have a bank account or rely on expensive payday lending programs to cash checks. The Postal Service is already the single largest provider of paper money orders nationwide, and it offered savings accounts to customers until the late 1960s. The inspector generals report estimated that the expansion of such services would generate about $1 billion in new revenue annually.

The Postal Service Reform Act would not explicitly authorize this kind of expansion, but it would leave the door open for experimentation by including a provision to allow more cooperation with state and local governments to offer nonpostal products on their behalf.

The bill would also put the Postal Service on firmer financial footing by removing a 2006 congressional requirement that the agency set aside large amounts of cash to cover the cost of employee post-retirement health benefits 75 years into the future. It is unreasonable to force the Postal Service to prefund retiree benefits that far ahead, something no other entity public or private is expected to do. The bill would also require the Postal Service to enroll all of its employees in Medicare when eligible, significantly reducing the agencys health care costs. Although mail carriers pay taxes into Medicare and are the second-largest contributor to Medicare in the country Medicare enrollment is voluntary for retirees.

Those changes, as requested by Mr. DeJoy, would help stop the financial bleeding at the agency, which has operated at a loss since 2006. It would save an estimated $45 billion over 10 years, freeing up money to make much-needed investments in modernization. A separate postal reform bill includes $8 billion to make a majority of postal trucks electric vehicles, which would be an enormous leap toward reducing emissions. Thats a plan that can be embraced by both environmental activists and corporations like Amazon, which ships packages through the Postal Service. As Amazon brings more deliveries in-house, the potential loss of revenue for the Postal Service poses a challenge that must be met with creativity and collaboration with other businesses that might fill the gap.

Far more needs to be done to bring the U.S. Postal Service into the digital age. But this is a step in the right direction. The post office has always been able to adapt to technological change from the pony express to the advent of airmail. It will be able to adapt once again, if Congress allows it to invest in itself and innovate.

Visit link:
Opinion | Democrat or Republican, You Probably Love the Post Office - The New York Times