Mediaboss Marketing

House Democrats sent a letter to the inspector general at the Office of Personnel and Management today asking for clarification and answers about a new White House policy to not respond to their oversight requests unless the queries come through House committee or subcommittee chairs.

According to Democratic Reps. Kathleen Rice of New York and Derek Kilmer of Washington, who penned today's letter, a senior official from the Office of Personnel and Management (OPM) called Rice's office in May to inform her and Kilmer that a letter they wrote asking about the federal government's guidelines for hiring new cybersecurity experts would not be answered unless a chair or subcommittee chair joined the inquiry.

All committees and subcommittees in the House as well as the Senate are run by Republicans, as they hold the majority in both chambers.

Two sources have confirmed to ABC News that the White House counsels office instructed legislative affairs departments to follow a new protocol to ignore requests for information from Democrats unless a Republican had signed on as well.

However, the OPM wrote in a statement to ABC News saying that the office planned to respond to letters from individual members on a "case-by-case" basis.

"It represents a practice followed for many years, regardless of which party is in the majority," a spokesperson from the office said in an email. The spokesperson said the office plans to respond to Democrat's letter about the policy, but did not make clear if the office would provide the information sought in the initial request.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and several other top Democrats on the Hill say by and large oversight letters from members of their party have been ignored. Pelosi has argued that to her, it seems like a policy shift. In total, House Democrats say about 275 of their inquiries since the Jan. 20 inauguration have gone unanswered.

The White Houses attempted gag order is the latest and most egregious attempt by the president to hide the truth from the American people," Pelosi said in a statement. "From firing FBI Director James Comey in an effort to quash the Bureaus investigation into Trump-Russia ties to refusing to release his tax returns, President Trump continues to wage an unprecedented campaign of dishonesty and secrecy."

The House minority leader continued, With this order, President Trump is making his disregard for transparency and his lack of respect for Congresss oversight role crystal clear. Since day one, the administration has refused to respond to hundreds of requests from Democrats on a range of issues critical to the health and security of the American people.

Kilmer told ABC News in an interview that such a directive to not engage with members of a political party really "flies in the face of government by the people and for the people."

"What is shocking here is that the Trump administration is making even a nonpartisan request for information and oversight partisan. I think that is really a new low for American democracy," he said.

Rice was insistent that her and Kilmer's original letter was apolitical and aimed only to get information about whether the House could help facilitate any federal efforts to recruit and retain top cybersecurity talent.

The New York congresswoman said she hopes the White House will reconsider its policy on House inquiries.

"It is completely undemocratic," she said in an interview with ABC News. "This is a political move to stymie the proper role of Congress, which is oversight over agencies."

She said she is talking about the issue with her Republican colleagues and she disputes any notion that the Democrats' inquiries are all fishing expeditions designed to sink Trump.

"The Constitution created the House of Representatives as part of a co-equal branch of government, made up of directly elected representatives of the people," says the letter that she and Kilmer today sent to the inspector general. "Every representative, regardless of political party, has a responsibility to serve his or her constituents, just as the administration has the responsibility to serve every American, regardless of who they voted for."

Read more from the original source:
Trump administration has failed to answer 275 inquiries: Democrats - ABC News

WASHINGTON The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is investing in South Carolina's special election to succeed congressman-turned-White House budget director Mick Mulvaney but just a fraction of what the national party has spent on the special election in neighboring Georgia.

The DCCC is putting $275,000 towards boosting South Carolina Democratic candidate Archie Parnell.

That's far less than the nearly $5 million being spent in support of Democrat Jon Ossoff in the highly competitive 6th District race in Georgia.

The difference shows that while the DCCC may be serious about party-building in traditionally red states ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, it doesn't necessarily see a clear pathway for victory in Parnell's bid against Republican Ralph Norman later this month.

"This investment will help turn out and provide key lessons on crucial voters for South Carolinas 5th Congressional District and the 2018 midterms more broadly," DCCC regional press secretary Cole Leiter said in a statement announcing the investment, provided to The Post and Courier.

"Were proud to make this investment in organizing staff, African-American radio, mail, digital and other targeted voter outreach in the final weeks of this campaign," Leiter continued, "and support a candidate like Archie Parnell who will stand up and fight for the smart, responsible kind of leadership this community needs."

The DCCC's investment will place a special focus on faith communities during the next two Sundays leading up to the June 20 special election finale.

The national party is also paying the salaries of three full-time field organizers for the Parnell campaign between now and Election Day.

The announcement of increased national party spending in the 5th District comes on the heels of this past weekend's visit from Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten and former S.C. Democratic Party Chairman Jaime Harrison, who is now a DNC associate chairman and focusing largely on state party building.

The attention on a special election in a conservative state and district is notable and could represent a new sensitivity towards investing in areas of the country that have been overlooked by Democrats in the past. But others warn that capitalizing on anti-Donald Trump sentiment may not be as viable in South Carolina as in Georgia.

S.C.'s 5th District stretches from Sumter to the Rock Hill region of the state.

Maddie Anderson, a National Republican Congressional Committee's regional press secretary, said in a statement to The Post and Courier that the DCCC's investment made it "clear they see no path to victory in South Carolina's fifth District.

"Just like in Kansas and in Montana, the DCCC is leaving their candidate high and dry and is underinvesting in a special election," she added, referencing to two other special elections this year that have been won by Republicans.

Anderson could not, however, offer a figure for how much the NRCC had spent in support of Norman so far. She said it is not the organization's policy to publicize its incremental investments in Congressional races, and that a sum total would be revealed closer to the time of the election.

Emma Dumain is The Post and Courier's Washington correspondent. Reach her at 843-834-0419 and follow her @emma_dumain.

Read more:
National Democrats making modest investment in South Carolina race to succeed Mick Mulvaney - Charleston Post Courier

Update, 1:30 p.m.:

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Gene Reynolds, of Minden, announced to his colleagues Monday that he plans to step down from his position as leader of the chamber's minority party.

"I have another life. I have so many things at home that that's where I need to be," Reynolds told The Advocate. The head of the caucus is required to travel the state, help out fellow Democratic officials, and find candidates for races.

Reynolds said his announcement was more of an early warning as he plans to serve as chairman for the 41-member caucus in the 105-member House through the end of this session and a special session, if called.

Reynolds was criticized for not voting on the controversial bill that would have blocked the removal of Confederate monuments. But he said those wounds have healed and Democrats have rallied around the need to get a reasonable state spending plan passed and to get better representation for moderates on the two House money committees.

He doesn't know if any other representative is interested in taking over the caucus duties.

Original story:

Democrats in the state House are continuing to try to block a must-pass construction spending bill to gain leverage with the Republican majority over other issues.

Democrats have stopped passage of House Bill 3, which authorizes the state Bond Commission to sell the bonds needed to finance the construction projects. The Legislature normally passes HB3 without fuss because it includes projects in so many members districts.

HB3 requires at least 70 votes, which gives the 41-member Democratic caucus leverage in the 105-member House. Democrats are asking for better representation on the Appropriations Committee which writes the first version of the budget and Ways and Means which handles tax measures. Democrats want 40 percent of the seats on the two committees, in line with their 40 percent representation in the House.

House Speaker Taylor Barras, R-New Iberia, indicated Monday that the House Republican leadership plans to try to sidestep the Democrats by amending HB3 onto House Bill 2, which lists the projects to be funded. Democrats question whether the Constitution allows such a maneuver.

Four senior Democrats met with Barras on Friday morning to present their requests. Later that day, Barras told reporters that he was noncommittal about what the Democrats are seeking.

Reynolds said that view was inaccurate. He is seeking a commitment from the GOP House leadership to allow more Democrats and more moderate Republicans a place on House Appropriations and House Ways & Means committees. Both panels are stacked with very conservative Republicans who routinely oppose any legislation that would raise revenues.

"How are we ever going to do tax reform if we never get any of those bills out of committee," Reynolds said. "We've got to stop this madness. We've got to get something done."

The Democrats also want more spending on government services.

Democrats in the state House blocked a must-pass spending bill Wednesday in an attempt to fo

The House is expected today to take up the Senates version of House Bill 1, the general spending bill for the fiscal year that begins on July 1. The House already passed its version of HB1 that the Senate has amended. The House will be deciding whether to approve or reject the Senates version, which takes the $206 million that the House Republican majority kept in reserve and spends it on education, public health care, prisons and pay raises for state employees.

Reynolds said House Democrats want the House to approve the Senates version, which would require at least 53 votes in the 105-member House.

If the House rejects HB1, House and Senate leaders will have to meet to try to settle on a final version that both sides can accept. Failure to reach a deal on HB1 and HB3 by 6 p.m. Thursday, when the regular legislative session ends, would force a special session that would begin 30 minutes later.

+2

Scholarships from the Taylor Opportunity Program for Students appears to be safe from cuts i

Follow Tyler Bridges on Twitter, @tegbridges.

Read more:
House Democrats seek leverage on spending, make-up of money committees - The Advocate

By Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images.

As self-evident as it may seem to liberals that the Trump presidency has been a disaster and is doomed to defeat, the daily cycle of scandal and outrage that dominates social media is no substitute for a viable presidential candidate. And the Democratic Party, it seems, has yet to learn the key lessons of Hillary Clintons failure in 2016. While Donald Trump has already filed paperwork for his re-election campaign, Democrats are facing a distressingly shallow bench of potential challengers. Trump may be flirting with an all-time low approval rating, but many of the politicians maneuvering to challenge him are not necessarily in a much stronger position.

There are the usual buzzed-about hopefuls, of course, that remain beloved on the left, including Joe Biden, who just launched his own political action committee, and Elizabeth Warren, whose progressive credentials are unimpeachable. But Biden would be 78 by the time he would assume the presidency, and Warrenwhether or not you believe herhas said repeatedly that she isnt running. The remaining names on the 2020 shortlist, meanwhile, are a pretty motley crewand sure to leave a bad taste in many liberals mouths.

Axioss Mike Allen surveys the field:

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe: He has talked extensively with friends and advisers about running. The guy has boundless energy, ambition and access to money and the personality and love of the game to withstand the grind and glare of politics.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.): She has met privately with top party officials and just hit California to raise money and her profile. Make no mistake: She wants to run. But that doesn't mean she will.

Mark Cuban: He considers himself a smarter, better-looking and more authentic version of Trump. He has coin, ambition and comfort in his own skin. Of all the CEO/celebrities, he's the most likely to plunge into the shark tank of politics.

Rahm Emanuel: He has not given any signals he'll run, but friends tell us the Chicago mayor thinks he has a better read than the others on what it takes for a Democrat to win in today's America. That said, he runs a city with huge murder and money problems.

There are other names on Allens list, too, such as Senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. Some names, like Gillibrand and Harris, may have some promise. But the rest may as well have been grown in a lab by Republican scientists in order to guarantee a Democratic defeat. McAuliffea major fundraiser with longstanding ties to the Clintonshas a storied history of sketchy business dealings, was investigated by the F.B.I. for receiving $120,000 from a Chinese-owned business, and aided the campaign of the wife of a F.B.I. official investigating Hillary Clinton. Cuban is a billionaire with few ties to progressive politics whose Trump-lite demeanor should come with its own trigger warning. Emanuel has made few friends by clashing with liberal activists, the Chicago teachers union, and Black Lives Matter. Booker is, to some, an inveterate opportunist whose reach exceeds his grasp. (Then there is the matter of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who remains a villain in progressive circles despite his recent attempts to shift left.)

After an election in which nearly half of Democratic voters were galvanized by a radical progressive firebrand in Bernie Sanders, and subsequently left disillusioned by Clintonism, the left seems to be stumbling toward another electoral shellacking as the proto-primary field fills up with potential candidates reflecting some of the Democratic Partys worst instincts.

Link:
Are Democrats Trying to Lose in 2020? - Vanity Fair

New York Times

Elite Condescension and Democrats New York Times Re The Dumb Politics of Elite Condescension (Sunday Review, May 28): Joan C. Williams says Democrats need to address the working-class revolt against global elites. No; Democrats need to figure out why the party of the poor, the working class and ...

Originally posted here:
Elite Condescension and Democrats - New York Times