Mediaboss Marketing

But President Donald Trump is -- and has always been -- a culture warrior.

And he made an aggressive move to elevate those issues to the political forefront Wednesday by announcing via Twitter that he is banning transgender Americans from serving in the military.

This time, though, top Democrats say they don't fear that a political debate over transgender rights will damage them in the Rust Belt. And some Democratic senators running for re-election in red states were sharply critical of Trump's move.

"Democrats need to show -- and can show -- that they can simultaneously fight for a society that is both more fair and more prosperous -- and drive home the fact that Trump is delivering neither," long-time Democratic strategist Ron Klain said in an email.

Democrats seen as prospects for the party's presidential nomination in 2020 immediately lambasted Trump's move. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand vowed to introduce legislation to overturn it. California Sen. Kamala Harris called it "discriminatory, wrong, and un-American." Former Vice President Joe Biden tweeted that "patriotic American who is qualified to serve in our military should be able to serve."

The Democrats Trump is really seeking to put in an uncomfortable position, though, are the 10 senators up for re-election in states he won -- all of which have more white, Christian voters who polls show are more likely to oppose transgender rights.

Some of those senators also attacked Trump's decision.

"If a service member can do the job and is willing, they should be able to serve -- and they should be able to be open about who they are," said North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, among the Democrats facing the toughest re-election battles in 2018.

"Decisions about military force posture and readiness are matters of life and death that should be among the most seriously considered by a president, and motivated by the best military judgment of the armed forces -- not by politics," Heitkamp said.

Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly cited Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby's criticism of Trump's transgender military service ban.

"When the stakes are as high as the safety and security of the United States, we should always have an open door for the best, most talented patriots," Donnelly said in a statement. "Military service should be about abilities, integrity, and performance, and I agree with my Republican colleague Sen. Shelby that everybody should be treated fairly and given a chance to serve."

"The decision announced by the administration today will prevent highly qualified, patriotic Americans from serving in our military," said Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey.

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown sounded a similar note, saying: "We should not turn away anyone who is willing and able to serve this country and help keep American safe."

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, tweeted: "A ban against any patriotic American who wants to serve our country is wrong."

Democrats have at least two major recent data points that suggest the political tide has shifted on LGBT issues.

In Wisconsin -- one of the states Trump won that is holding a Senate contest in 2018 -- Baldwin, who became the first openly gay senator when she won the seat in 2012, is running for re-election.

And in North Carolina, the economic backlash against Republicans' transgender bathroom bill played a central role in GOP Gov. Pat McCrory's loss in his re-election bid in 2016.

Trump himself had campaigned on a promise to protect LGBT Americans -- although it was always through the lens of defending them from "radical Islam," rather than civil rights.

"This will become the latest example for voters that the GOP agenda is about keeping their most extreme base happy to protect Trump, not about delivering on the things people care about so we protect the middle class," said Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson.

"If they think voters will reward them for an agenda that discriminates against people by firing thousands of them who want to protect our country instead of getting results on health care and the economy, they're tragically misreading America," he said.

In a sign that the politics of the issue might not be in Trump's favor, Republicans in purple states, including Arizona Sen. John McCain, criticized his broad tweets that left unanswered questions about whether thousands of transgender people currently serving in the military will be kicked out.

Other Republicans in swing states who are on the ballot in 2020 also criticized Trump's decision. North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis said he agrees with McCain. "Americans who are qualified and can meet the standards to serve in the military should be afforded that opportunity," said Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst, a veteran. Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, told reporters, "I think anybody who wants to serve in the military should serve in the military."

Read more from the original source:
Democrats say they're ready for a culture war as Trump bans transgender people from military service - CNN

What is it about Russia some vestige of all those Cold War spy films, perhaps that mentioning it makes so many people, on all political sides, behave so irrationally?

Consider the behavior of Democrats who are seeking to prove that Donald Trump or his campaign "colluded" with Russia, with the implication that this "collusion" somehow determined the outcome of the 2016 election.

The mainstream media feeds this narrative with breathless multiple-bylined stories about Attorney General Jeff Sessions's casual encounter with the Russian ambassador in the Mayflower Hotel or Donald Trump Jr.'s ludicrous meeting with the Russian lady lawyer.

Of course, a genuine conspiracy would have been conducted with the Internet-age equivalent of secret messages written in invisible ink delivered to secret dropboxes. And it's not clear what useful guidance the shambolic, tweet-driven Trump campaign could have given to Russians bent on messing with the American electoral process.

In any case, the Russia issue was litigated during the campaign. Candidate Trump's weird unwillingness to say anything negative about Vladimir Putin, plus his past business dealings in Russia, raised legitimate questions about his Russia policy. Hillary Clinton intelligently and aggressively aired these issues in debate and on the stump.

No evidence has been found that any state's election system was hacked. Hackers, apparently Russian (though Trump weirdly said he doubted that), tried to access Republican and Democratic servers. They penetrated the Democrats' system and publicized embarrassing emails. Does anyone believe those stories switched the 77,000 votes by which Trump narrowly carried Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin? Not really.

Ever since about 9:00 Eastern on election night, Democrats have been yearning to oust Trump from office. Some otherwise intelligent liberals outlined scenarios putting Hillary Clinton in the White House. Many imagine now that some smoking gun of "collusion" evidence will result in Trump's impeachment and removal from office.

But it's hard to imagine what it could be. Special prosecutor Robert Mueller may ensnare some witness in a perjury trap, but how do you have a smoking gun when there's no identifiable crime?

I think it's irrationally risky for Democrats to make "collusion" their major issue and effectively to promise they'll impeach Trump if they win a House majority next year. More to the point, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi seems to agree and has told colleagues to downplay the I-word.

She doesn't want to alienate that quantum of voters willing to vote for Democrats to check Donald Trump, but not to force an impeachment trial which will, as in 1999, result in acquittal in the Senate. But such cool rationality seems rare among her fellow Democrats.

Cool rationality is not a term anyone, fan or foe, seems likely to attach to Donald Trump any time soon. His tweets and interview responses, seemingly determined to prompt Jeff Sessions's resignation as attorney general, are as irrational as critics' scenarios of his imminent replacement by Hillary Clinton.

Sessions, the only senator to endorse him before he clinched the Republican nomination in May 2016, has striven faithfully to carry out his policies. His recusal from involvement on Russia matters last March, though over-cautious in my view, was something Trump could have cautioned against then. And Trump could now legitimately call on Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to cabin in what National Review's Andrew McCarthy has argued is Mueller's illegally broad mandate. Presidents have lines of communication with appointees less public than Twitter.

Trump, of course, has only himself to blame for Mueller's appointment, which resulted from self-admitted clever leaking and maneuvering by James Comey after he was abruptly fired as FBI director in May.

Meanwhile, it's hard to dismiss as fake news reports that other cabinet members and Republican senators are dismayed and disheartened at Trump's treatment of Sessions. You would surely feel that way yourself if you were in their shoes.

Moreover, if Sessions resigns or is fired, there will be confirmation hearings for his replacement. One thing Democrats and maybe some Republicans will demand is a commitment that Mueller not be fired or his investigation limited.

Similar commitments extracted from Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus prompted their resignations when Richard Nixon ordered them to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox in October 1973. Nixon resigned 10 months later.

It has long been my contention that the political marketplace, like the economic marketplace, operates tolerably well when competitors, constrained by the rule of law, act out of rational self-interest.

It doesn't work so well when, as today, people on both sides keep acting irrationally.

Continued here:
Democrats and Trump: both behaving irrationally - Washington Examiner

Theodore Roosevelt offered Americans a "Square Deal." His fifth cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, gave us "The New Deal." Modern Democrats, who have lost election after election, are now offering the country "A Better Deal."

Speaking in Berryville, Virginia, a small town that voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump and is represented by a Republican in Congress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, "Too many Americans don't know what we stand for."

Actually, they do know and that's why Democrats don't have the White House, why they lost their congressional majority and the reason they are in the minority in most state legislatures and governorships.

Standing on a platform with other aging, hard-left Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), the "Better Deal" sounded like warmed over hash. Here's how The New York Times described it: "The policies combine left-leaning doctrine old and new -- a $15-an-hour minimum wage, a crusade against monopolies, and efforts to lower prescription drug costs -- elevating issues Democrats expect to animate next year's midterm elections and supplying an answer to critics who accuse them of offering nothing but obstruction."

It would be nice if one of those monopolies targeted by Democrats were the public schools and the increasingly popular school choice option, which The Wall Street Journal recently noted is working to improve grades of especially poor and minority children. Don't look for that to happen, as Democrats aren't about to give up campaign donations from the teachers unions.

Wasn't the expansion of the Medicare program under President George W. Bush to include prescription drug payments supposed to have reduced costs? Not so. When the government gets involved in almost anything -- from college tuition, to drugs -- costs go up, not down.

As for the $15-an-hour minimum wage suggestion, we have heard this argument from Democrats in previous calls for its increase. A recent Harvard Business School study of restaurants in San Francisco found that every one-dollar increase in the minimum wage led to a 4 to 10 percent increase in the likelihood of a restaurant closing.

A University of Washington study on the minimum wage law's impact on restaurant workers in Seattle found that while hikes accounted for higher wages, the number of hours low-wage earners were allowed to work declined, producing a net loss in earnings. In other words, the restaurant workers earned more before the government mandated a higher minimum wage. Doesn't anyone in government understand basic economics, not to mention human nature?

Nowhere in the unveiling of their "Better Deal" is there any suggestion by Democrats that low-income Americans can, or should, work for the day when they are independent of government. As the party of government, Democrats have addicted millions of people to the notion that they are owed, or "entitled," to other people's money. Theirs is a party of envy, greed and entitlement, pitting the successful -- and envy of them -- against the less successful with little expectation that those at the bottom of the wage scale can, or should, rise from their current circumstances to embrace a better life.

The Times story called the Democrats' announcement "the battle cry of a party in the wilderness." Question: If a Democrat speaks in the wilderness, will anyone hear?

This latest effort to fool voters into believing Democrats have something new to say, or better policies to try, isn't a better deal, it's a raw deal.

Thomas is a columnist with Chicago Tribune.

See the original post here:
Thomas: Democrats offer a raw deal - Quad City Times

By Jared Bernstein By Jared Bernstein July 27 at 6:00 AM

Jared Bernstein, a former chief economist to Vice President Biden, is a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and author of the new book 'The Reconnection Agenda: Reuniting Growth and Prosperity.'

The part of the Democrats Better Deal plan that I find most interesting is the piece that would push back on monopolistic corporate power. Its neither radical nor left. I cant say if its particularly good politics (although their internal polling suggests it is). But assuming this proposal eventually grows into something real, its likely to prove to be increasingly important economic policy with significant benefits for working families.

The broad outlines of the plan are to:

Prevent big mergers that would harm consumers, workers, and competition. Require regulators to review mergers after completion to ensure they continue to promote competition. Create a 21st century Trust Buster to stop abusive corporate conduct and the exploitation of market power where it already exists.

But wait. Dont we already have an antitrust function in the Justice Department? Yes, but based on a wide and growing body of evidence, corporate power is still becoming more concentrated, and thats leading to large chunks of market share in the hands of just a few companies.

Those companies, in turn, are generating the classical problems associated with, if not quite monopolies, then the absence of robust competition. These problems include fat profit margins and their correlate, thinner wage shares; less consumer choice; less innovation; less entrepreneurial activity; and less price competition. Theres even evidence suggesting that one of the biggest economic challenges we face right now slow productivity growth is related to the increased concentration of corporate power.

The evidence is pervasive and persuasive. Barry Lynn at the think tank New America, who dives deeply into these weeds, documents the concentration in retail (e.g., Walmart, Amazon and two other companies that control 60 percent of the mattress market, though I expect their competitors were lying down on the job sorry), health care, pharma and more. Data from Goldman Sachs that are five years old (and, thus, likely understate the problem) find that in general merchandise stores, the share of total sales of the four largest firms increased from 55.9 percent in 1997 to 82.7 percent in 2012; in air transport, the comparable figures are 20.5 percent to 57.0 percent.

By looking at the implications for profits, the figures below take this analysis to the next level. The figure on the left shows that, as fewer firms captured a larger share of their industrys revenue, industry profits rose, as well. In fact, as the scatterplot on the right shows, the change in revenue share explains 71 percent of the change in operating margins. Its a finding that comports with common sense: Concentration correlates with market power and, thus, profitability.

Whats wrong with that? Well, in the Atlantic, Lynn putnot too fine a point on it:

Monopoly is amain driver of inequality, as profits concentrate more wealth in the hands of the few. The effects of monopoly enrage voters in their day-to-day lives, as they face the sky-high prices set bydrug-company cartelsand the abuses ofcable providers,health insurers, andairlines. Monopoly provides much of the funds the wealthy use todistort American politics.

The inequality point is worth elevating in the spirit of the figures above. Think of income as having two sources: profits and wages. When the share going to profits goes up, the wage share falls. Now, inequality has gone up within both shares over time, but profits are far more skewed toward the wealthy than wages. So when more income flows to profits and less to wages, inequality rises. Importantly, numerous academic papers have documented this link between greater concentration, higher profit shares and smaller wage shares.

Why has concentration increased so much? Theres evidence that firms that most effectively tap new technologies and globalization claim the most revenue share. Policy plays a role as well; Dean Baker documents economically large distortions associated with patents, trade policy and financial markets.

But whatever the cause, the fact that Democrats recognize and are showing interest in going after the problem is a good thing. And thats not just my view. David Dayen, a hard-hitting, left-leaning journalist whos often critical of ideas from the center-left, wrote that by going after corporate power, and in particular monopoly concentration, Democrats finally hit the target.

This analysis assumes two things. First, and Dayen is clear on this point, it assumes theyll follow through. Second, because Democrats dont have the votes now to do much of anything, it assumes the issue will resonate with voters. Whether that happens is a function of Democrats credibility on follow-through and how effectively Democrats can connect these broad, macro changes to peoples lives. That may sound hard, but if youve ever flown, filled a prescription or paid a monthly cellphone bill (ouch!), you may be more primed than you think to buy into this idea.

One final point. Above, I noted that theres really nothing lefty about antimonopoly politics. Classical economists since Adam (Smith) have recognized the distortions caused by excessive concentration. This debate thus reveals one of the most pervasive myths in our contemporary political economy: that Republicans are pro-market forces and Democrats are anti-markets. Too often, both sides are all too happy to cash the checks of the corporate monopolists. If Democratstruly get back to trustbusting, theywill be making a powerful, progressive statement about what and for whom they really stand.

Go here to read the rest:
Democrats say they want to go after monopoly power. Here's why that's a great idea. - Washington Post

House Democrats this week are trying to hitch a slate of amendments to the appropriations minibus, all targeting the business, family members and scandals of President Donald Trump.

The amendments, offered in the Rules Committee, are part of the minority partys larger effort to tie their Republicancolleagues to Trumps possible conflicts of interest stemming from his business holdings and the governments probe of alleged collusion by Trump campaign officials with Russia to influence the 2016 elections.

Republicans on the Rules Committee are set to nix some of the proposals Wednesday when they complete a rule for the defense portion of the four-bill spending package.

Its a scenario that has played out on similar Democratic tactics aimed at the president and his ethics, such as resolutions of inquiry. GOP lawmakers have called the Democrats strategy blatantly political and have said the measures are often duplicative of ongoing investigations and existing ethics laws.

But Democrats want to keep the pressure up into the 2018 elections.

Democrats need to use whatever tools are at their disposal, said Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., his partys point man on ethics. Using the appropriations process, he added, is fair game.

Rep. Donald S. Beyer Jr.offered an amendment that would prohibit taxpayer funds from being used to reimburse federal employees for travel or other business expenses at Trump properties such as Mar-a-Lago, the presidents club in Florida.

Appropriations bills have to come to the floor, so its much easier to actually have a hearing on it if its an amendment to appropriations, the Virginia Democrattold CQ Roll Call. A standalone measure, by contrast, can disappear from the face of the Earth if it doesnt have bipartisan support, he added.

Rep. Ted Lieu, a California Democrat, offered a similar amendment that would bar the Defense Department from spending taxpayer funds at properties owned by the president or his family.

I dont mind if the president wants to go golfing at Mar-a-Lago, Lieu said. The problem is if he brings a whole bunch of staff, Department of Defense personnel its inappropriate for the taxpayers to pay for it.

Another amendment from Rep. Brendan F. Boyle , D-Pa., would block the use of taxpayer money to pay any of the legal bills for Trump and his family members in the Russia investigation.Trump is allowed to use campaign funds for legal fees and has already tapped the committees set up for his re-election to do so.

Other proposals would target Trumps son-in-law and top aide Jared Kushners security clearance. Kushner, who has revised the disclosures required for the security clearance, spoke to Senate Intelligence Committee staff on Monday and denied any collusion with Russian officials.

Democrats are looking for a way to drive a wedge among Republicans over Trump, said Sarah Binder, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution. The appropriations package is an attractive vehicle for Democratic messaging bills, she noted.

Congressional Republicans, of course, used the appropriations process when their party did not control the White House to target the Obama administration on Cuba policy, immigration matters and others.

Appropriations becomes a nice target because, in some form, eventually they are must-pass, Binder said.

Some veteran policy wonks say using the appropriations process for the political measures, though, makes an already difficult slog of funding the government even riskier.

Personally, I dont think that it is a wise use of the energy and resources of legislative counsel or the appropriations process, said longtime lobbyist Mike Fulton, director of public affairs and advocacy for the Asher Agency. We live and die with the appropriations process, and I think that anything that inhibits that process is detrimental to government working smoothly.

The Democratic strategy on Trump goes beyond the must-pass spending bills.

This week, the minority party, using a tactic called a resolution of inquiry, is forcing four committee votes over Trump ethics and business issues. On Wednesday, the House Judiciary and Homeland Security panels have scheduled votes on resolutions in their jurisdiction.

The Judiciary resolution would request documents from the Department of Justice related to former FBI Director James B. Comeys dismissal and Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusal in the Russia probe.

Homeland Securitys vote is on a resolution of inquiry from New Jersey Rep. Bonnie Watson Colemanand other Democrats, that would direct the Department of Homeland Security to provide the committee with information and documents detailing payments that the department has made that relate to The Trump Organization and travel by Trumps family members for company business.

The House Financial Services Committee rejected a resolution on Tuesday that would have compelled the Treasury Department to provide any documents related to the presidents possible business investments in Russia.

The committees chairman, Jeb Hensarling of Texas, called the resolution blatantly political and added: On this committee, there will be some who wish to focus on Russia and impeachment, but under my chairmanship, this committee will continue to be focused on America and a healthier economy.

Doug Sword contributed to this report.

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.

See original here:
House Democrats Want to Use Minibus to Target Trump Ethics - Roll Call