Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

‘Infrastructure week,’ designed to challenge Democrats, finds no takers – Washington Post

President Trump touted his new infrastructure investment "generation" plan in Cincinnati on June 7. He said it would include at least $200 billion in "direct federal investment." (The Washington Post)

If President Trumps infrastructure week was winning converts,Rep. Rick Nolan (D-Minn.) was exactly the sort of Democrat who should have come over. Elected in 2012, he watched his blue-leaning district in northeast Minnesota swing hard right, giving Trump a 15-point victory. If he ran for reelection, hed be at the top of Republican target lists, with attack ads informing voters how a member of the Transportation Committee hadfailed to deliver.

Nolanthought the Trump pitch had been a bust.

I thought a trillion dollars for infrastructure meant a trillion dollars for infrastructure, Nolan said. Hes talking about 90 percent from the private sector and 10 percent from the feds? Its not going to happen. Its exactly backwards.

The Trump infrastructure push, meant to be at the very least a welcome political distraction in a scandal-dominated week, has become the latest example of the presidents vanishing clout. A White House signing ceremony had the president sending a toothless letter to Congress. A speech in Cincinnati offered few details and plenty of digressions. And an accompanying memo to reporters contained more about the problems with President Barack Obamas 2009 stimulus bill than the details of Trumps $200 billion infrastructure goals.

The result: Democrats, who once worried about the president barnstorming the country to take credit for new jobs and investment, are feeling no pressure to act on an amorphous and easily demonized plan.

When he called for a trillion-dollar infrastructure bill, we thought that was great, said Senate MinorityLeader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) at this weeks newsconference. What theyve proposed is privatizing most of our infrastructure to give wealthy financiers tax breaks on projects they were probably going to build anyway itll lead to Trump tolls from one end of the country to the other.

What had worried Democrats, after a surprise 2016 defeat powered by a collapse of Rust Belt and labor support, was an infrastructure plan that would have doled out no-strings money to states.When he started talking about it, he compared it to the wars in Iraq were gonna stop these wars of choice and spend the money here, Nolan said. That was a powerful message. In late November 2016, Trump adviser Stephen K. Bannon told the Hollywood Reporter that the ideal infrastructure plan would be financed by deficit spending.

With negative interest rates throughout the world, its the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything, Bannon said. Shipyards, ironworks, get them all jacked up. Were just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s.

That kicked off a month of awkward Democratic reactions, with progressives such asSen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) suggesting that they could work with the president on infrastructure, drawing backlashes from their horrified base. On Jan. 23, Democrats attempted to preempt a populist Trump proposal with their own $1 trillion infrastructure package, funding everything from broadband to sewer pipes at a higher rate than the 2009 stimulus.

The White House did nothing. To the surprise of defeated Democrats, the infrastructure plan re-emerged as a tangle of public-private partnerships, where according to the few available details local governments would trade the traditional federal match for infrastructure projects with 80/20 or 90/10 private/public funding.

Its been the most convoluted thing you could imagine, said Ron Klain, who was Vice President Joe Bidens chief of staff and led the stimulus team in 2009. I thought to some extent that when Trump had a highly simple message Ill spend money here hed learned our lesson. We had this bill that was like Noahs ark for every project, and hed just spend money. And instead its like Pharaoh telling people to build bricks without straw, because Republicans dont want to spend the money.

Here is the original post:
'Infrastructure week,' designed to challenge Democrats, finds no takers - Washington Post

US Senate Democrats rallying votes against Saudi arms sale – DefenseNews.com

WASHINGTON The top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has committed to vote against a U.S.-Saudi deal for precision-guided munitions, a signal Democrats could oppose the deal en masse.

Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said Wednesday he would vote to block the sale of $510 million in smart bombs to be used in the war in Yemen because the Trump administration has not yet articulated a strategy to end the war through political means.

Instead, this administrations approach appears to be more weapons sales, Cardin said in a measured statement Wednesday that expressed some support for Riyadh. The administrations decision to proceed with the sale of precision-guided munitions, absent leadership to push all parties toward a political process for a negotiated settlement, including Saudi Arabia, sends the absolutely wrong signal to our partners and our adversaries.

The vote could come as soon as Thursday, when the big news is expected to be former FBI Director's James Comey testifying before the Senate on his interactions with President Trump over Russian meddling in U.S. elections.

"I know Comey hearing is the thing, but don't sleep on a possible Senate vote tomor[row] on Saudi arms sale," Murphy said in a tweet on Wednesday evening. "I'm hustling for votes as we speak..."

The resolution would halt three planned deals. It targets packages of Joint Direct Attack Munitions off the Royal Saudi Air Forces western-made F-15 fighter aircraft; Paveway laser-guided bombs for Saudi Tornado and Typhoon aircraft, and the integration of the FMU-152A/B Joint Programmable Fuze into the MK-80, BLU-109, and BLU-100 munitions.

On Tuesday, Paul said he has gotten little traction with Republicans to block the arms deal and was not sure it would win the simple majority it would need to pass. The best hope was to send a message asserting Congress's war-making authority.

Whichever way it turns out, I think its an important issue because its a proxy debate for should we be at war in Yemen which we are in, in a way, already, Paul said. That should be voted on in Congress and shouldnt be glossed over. When the Obama administration finally pulled back, I think they were influenced by our debate [in the Senate].

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., dismissed the vote as crazy.

I think we need the Saudis right now, and Ive put pressure on them for years and years and years, and theyve made some improvements but they have a long way to go, McCain said. Theyre not a democracy, theyre not the United States of America.

The White House has also been on the defensive over an announced $110 billion arms sale to Riyadh that may be less than advertised. The State Department has to sign off on much of the sales, and about $24 billion were discussed with the Obama administration and were well underway.

There are several reasons for Democrats to oppose the Saudi deal, said one Democratic aide. The vote could serve to show Congresss's concern for the humanitarian crisis amid the administrations apparent ambivalence on humanitarian issues in the Middle East.

Democrats have been vocal on this issue before. Murphy, Paul, Franken and Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., introduced a bill in April to suspend certain air-to-ground munition deliveries until the U.S. president certifies that the Saudis show a commitment to fighting terrorism, facilitating the flow of humanitarian and commercial goods, and to protecting civilians in Yemen. A similar resolution was introduced in the House on May 25 with six co-sponsors.

But Murphy said lawmakers then had legitimate concerns the tank sale was not directly connected to the Yemen war, while this munition sales clear connection and history of disapproval by the Obama administration should earn it more opposition.

I think this vote will be very different, Murphy said Tuesday.

As of Wednesday afternoon, some Democrats were still undecided. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said of the munitions sale: Im looking at it. I think Senator Murphy and Senator Paul are making some important points.

I think both parties have always seen arms sales as a means to extract human rights concessions from Middle Eastern governments, and the lack of human rights conditions on this arms sale is worrying to both Republicans and Democrats, Murphy said.

View original post here:
US Senate Democrats rallying votes against Saudi arms sale - DefenseNews.com

The Democratic Party Is in Worse Shape Than You Thought – New York Times


New York Times
The Democratic Party Is in Worse Shape Than You Thought
New York Times
What the autopsy reveals is that Democratic losses among working class voters were not limited to whites; that crucial constituencies within the party see its leaders as alien; and that unity over economic populism may not be able to turn back the ...
New York Times writer: Democrats 'embracing' Comey after shunning himWashington Examiner
Democratic Edge in Party Affiliation Up to Seven PointsGallup
Republicans had jokes about James Comey's upcoming Senate testimony and Democrats called them outAOL
The Hill
all 53 news articles »

Go here to see the original:
The Democratic Party Is in Worse Shape Than You Thought - New York Times

Democrats Keep Losing, but They May Be on Track to Win – New York Times


New York Times
Democrats Keep Losing, but They May Be on Track to Win
New York Times
The president's approval ratings are stuck in the upper 30s, and the party out of power typically does well in off-year elections. But so far, Democrats don't have any big wins to show for it. Republicans won special congressional elections in Kansas ...

and more »

Link:
Democrats Keep Losing, but They May Be on Track to Win - New York Times

Democrats Once Had Only Contempt for James Comey. But That Was Then. – New York Times


New York Times
Democrats Once Had Only Contempt for James Comey. But That Was Then.
New York Times
Those were among the harsh words top Democrats used to toss around about the actions of James B. Comey during his tenure as director of the F.B.I. Their anger and resentment over his handling of the Hillary Clinton email matter and other issues were so ...
The Donald Trump resistance is working and Democrats can't let upUSA TODAY

all 2,339 news articles »

Visit link:
Democrats Once Had Only Contempt for James Comey. But That Was Then. - New York Times