Mediaboss Marketing

There are few better examples of political double-talk than a candidate attempting to present himself as a foe of the party establishment. In the North Carolina Senate race, both viable candidates have laid claim to the insurgents mantleand both are hypocritical in doing so. At the same time that Pat McCrory and Ted Budd portray themselves as the scourge of Washington, each man has courted establishment donors and sought endorsements from well known party figures. The conventional wisdom may have been that McCrory fit the NRSCs establishment mold better than his louder competitors, but the failed ex-governor may not even achieve support from the forces he has spent his life attempting to please.

Evidence of Ted Budds viability in the race for an institutional Republican imprimatur came last week with a slate of endorsements. Over 30 current and former legislators endorsed Budd, a stinging rebuke to McCrory given that Ted Budd has never served in state government. More eye-opening were the names on that list. In addition to the predictable fringe-dwellers like Representative Larry Pittman, consummate insiders like John Alexanderthe most moderate Republican in the General Assembly until his retirement last yearand Jeff Tarte signed onto the Budd effort. Tartes support was especially striking; he served from McCrorys home county of Mecklenburg.

What this reveals is that the Raleigh Republican establishment has little regard for Pat McCrory. As powerful former state Senate rules chair Tom Apodaca once deadpanned, the governor doesnt play much of a role in anything. Apodaca endorsed Ted Budd. In addition to these legislators, Raleigh native and ur-country-clubber George Holding lent his support to Budd. And in the donor space, legendary Raleigh developer John Kane has donated to Ted Budds campaign. Outside of Charlotte, McCrory is anything but beloved by North Carolina Republican panjandrums.

Nor are these power brokers necessarily averse to Ted Budd. The best analogy for Budd would be not to a fringe populist like Alabama Representative Mo Brooks, but to former South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint. Like DeMint, Budd is far rightbut hes also a well liked member of the establishment GOP. If he continues building support across the state, Budd could easily become the establishment choice over a failed one-term governor who left Raleigh as a pariah. Thats a little amazing, but not to a superlative degree in the minds of anyone who watched Pat McCrory bumble through his term as governor.

In fairness, McCrory has lined up some establishment support of his own. Senator Richard Burr endorsed McCrory, calling him the only candidate who could win the race. McCrory landed GOP mega-consultant Paul Shumaker and seems to have maintained enduring support in Charlotte GOP circles. But none of that is necessarily a plus in a party that is rural, that is populist, and that hates Richard Burr for having the courage to vote for Trumps conviction. My view has long been that if you run a well funded campaign against McCrory, youll beat him. Ted Budd has the tools to do that.

Alexander Jones is an original contributor to PoliticsNC.

See original here:
Who Will Be The Establishment Republican in #NCSEN? - PoliticsNC

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

Texas House members on Thursday released the first proposal for a new map redrawing the chamber's 150-member districts. The initial draft would both increase Republicans' strength across the state and the number of districts in which white residents make up a majority of eligible voters.

House Bill 1, authored by Corpus Christi Rep. Todd Hunter, the GOP chair of the House Redistricting Committee, is just the first draft, and it will likely change as it makes its way through the legislative process before its signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott.

The Texas Legislature is in the midst of its third special session. This one is dedicated to redrawing political maps based on the latest census data that showed people of color fueled 95% of Texas population growth over the past decade. The percent of Hispanics is now nearly equal to white people in Texas.

But, the new map creates fewer districts where Black and Hispanic people make up a majority of eligible voters. Black and Hispanic Texans make up two racial groups that along with Asian Texans outpaced the growth of white residents in the state over the last decade.

Currently 83 of the chambers 150 districts are areas in which white residents make up a majority of eligible voters; 33 are districts where Hispanic voters make up the majority, while Black residents are the majority of eligible voters in seven districts.

Under the new proposal, the map adds six more districts where white residents make up the majority of eligible voters while the number of Hispanic and Black districts would each drop by three.

The proposed map would also change the partisan breakdown among the 150 districts, tilting the scale toward Republicans.

Currently, there are 76 districts that went to former President Donald Trump during the 2020 general election while 74 went to President Joe Biden. Among those, 50 districts voted 60% or more for Trump, indicating the district is safely Republican while 40 districts had more than 60% support for Biden indicating strong Democratic support. Under the proposed new map, 86 districts would have gone for Trump, while 64 would have went for Biden. The number of districts that voted 60% or more for Trump or Biden would be tied at 46.

The House draft would also pit several incumbents against one another, including two El Paso Democrats state Reps. Evelina "Lina" Ortega and Claudia Ordaz Perez who would have to vie for the new House District 77.

In statements soon after the initial draft was released, both lawmakers criticized the proposal for pitting two Hispanic incumbents against the other.

Ortega, who referred to the proposal as "a direct attack on our border community," said she was "committed to working for our community to stop this injustice from occurring." Ordaz Perez said she would "refuse to sell out my values or those of the people I represent for political gain," adding that she intends to return to the lower chamber for another term "to fight for the people of El Paso."

In two other cases, state Reps. Jacey Jetton, R-Richmond, and Phil Stephenson, R-Wharton, would have to compete for the proposed House District 26, while state Reps. Kyle Biedermann, R-Fredericksburg, and Terry Wilson, R-Marble Falls, would face off for the new House District 19.

Later Thursday, disagreement emerged between Jetton and Stephenson over whether the latter had been drawn out of his district.

Stephenson's office told the Tribune that Jetton "isn't playing the nicest with this new map" and blamed him for drawing Stephenson out of his district.

Jetton, in a statement to the Tribune, acknowledged that while "there has been some confusion about Representative Stephenson's residence," it was his understanding that Stephenson resides in Wharton County, "so we are not actually paired in HD-26."

As for the other GOP matchup, it appeared later Thursday that the two incumbents could avoid a primary after Biedermann tweeted he may run in another district.

Other incumbent pairings under the House proposal involve a lawmaker who is either running for another office or has already announced their retirement.

In the proposed Dallas-area House District 108, for example, state Rep. John Turner, D-Dallas, who would have to face off against state Rep. Morgan Meyer, R-Dallas, has already announced he will not seek another term to the lower chamber.

And in another North Texas race for House District 63, state Rep. Tan Parker, R-Flower Mound, who would have to compete against his colleague state Rep. Michelle Beckley, D-Carrollton, is running for a seat in the Senate, while Beckley is vying for a spot in Congress.

Beyond the incumbent pairings, the proposed map offered disappointing news for state Rep. Erin Zwiener, D-Driftwood, who was drawn out of her district and into an adjacent, far more Republican one. She told the Tribune on Thursday afternoon that she is "hoping that there's some space to fix it" in the coming days but was not sure. She said she was unlikely to be able to move to follow the newly proposed version of her current district, which would be solidly Democratic.

One Republican incumbent, state Rep. Jeff Cason of Bedford, got especially bad news as he saw his district get redrawn to be a deep shade of blue on that Biden carried by 27 points. Cason did not have an immediate comment.

At least a few other incumbents are looking at proposed districts that would be notably less favorable to them than they currently are. In South Texas, the district of state Rep. Ryan Guillen, D-Rio Grande City, would go from one that Trump won by 13 points to one he carried by almost double that margin. In suburban Austin, the district of state Rep. James Talarico, D-Round Rock, would transform from that Biden won easily to one that Trump carried by 6 points.

At the same time, several House Republicans whose districts Biden carried last year received redder districts under the proposed map but probably not red enough to avert another competitive contest next year. For example, in suburban Dallas, Biden had a 9-point margin victory in the district of state Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, though the map proposal shifts only to a district that Trump carried by 2 points.

Only two seats flipped last year in the lower chamber both in the Houston area and the proposed map makes each more friendly for the incumbent rather than more competitive. The seat of State Rep. Mike Schofield, R-Katy, would become redder, while the seat of state Rep. Ann Johnson, D-Houston, would become bluer.

This is the first time in decades federal law allows Texas to draw and use political maps without first getting federal approval to ensure that theyre not violating the rights people of color. That federal preclearance requirement in the Voting Rights Act was gutted by the Supreme Court in 2013.

Since the enactment of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, Texas has not made it through a single decade without a federal court admonishing it for violating federal protections for voters of color.

The 2021 Texas Tribune Festival, the weeklong celebration of politics and policy featuring big names and bold ideas, wrapped on Sept. 25, but theres still time to tune in. Explore dozens of free, on-demand events before midnight Thursday, Sept. 30, at tribfest.org.

More:
Texas House proposes map that increases Republican strength and decreases Black and Hispanic majority districts - The Texas Tribune

By Dr. Harold A. Black

blackh@knoxfocus.com

When ProPublica exposed the tax records of some billionaires showing little or no federal income tax paid, predictably many on the left and in the media howled in indignation. No one claimed that the billionaires were engaging in illegal activity but many said that the billionaires should pay their fair share. One socialist in Congress even showed up at a $30,000 per person event with a dress that looked like a Chick-fil-a bag that had written on its back Tax the Rich. What I found striking was that of the billionaires scrutinized most were Democrats or leaned toward the Democrats, one was independent and only one was a Republican. Two of the exposed Democrats were among the ones who give most to the left: Michael Bloomberg (who gave over $60 million to fund Democrat House races) and George Soros who has given more than $550 million for leftist causes.

Yet deep-pocket donors have been vilified by the left. The proposed tax bill of the Democrats in Congress targets the rich and at the corporations. It raises the marginal income tax from 37% to 39.6%. The capital gains tax would increase to 39.6% combined with a 3.8% surtax on investment income making the top federal rate of 43.4% by far the highest among developed countries. It institutes a capital gains tax at death on estates. Perhaps the most knee-jerk reaction to the ProPublica piece is legislation that taxes the unrealized capital gains of billionaires only. Thus, if the value of a billionaires stock holdings rose adding a billion dollars to wealth, that increase would be taxed as ordinary income. This would generate many forms of circumvention, mostly negative. Biden supports the new tax and not surprisingly, the Republicans (for some reason that escapes me) oppose it.

Why are there wealthy Democrats since they are constantly demonized by their politicians and the media? During the last presidential campaign, Wall Streets deep-pocket donors gave more to Democrat campaigns than to Republicans even though their most fierce critics are all on the Democrat side of the aisle in Congress.

There is obviously something going on that I dont understand. Why would the wealthy support a party whose avowed goal is to make the rich poorer? Are the rich that dumb? What is clear is that the Republican party seems to confirm George Wills calling it the Dumb party and needs to reassess its priorities. It should no longer defend the rich and big corporations against the left. It should abandon those who do not support it and announce that it is voting for the billionaires tax, the increase in the corporate income tax, and the increase in tax on the rich. It should concentrate on reducing the burdens on the individuals and the small businesses that constitute its base.

The basic tenets for Republicans are that individual rights and freedom are essential rather than the whims of the government. Private property and free enterprise are the bases of effort and achievement. Individual initiative and ingenuity propel effort and creativity. Government is inefficient and wasteful and should be limited in scope. The Constitution provides the framework of our society and is not a living document.

As to businesses, the Republican party should no longer defend corporate America against rises in the corporate tax rate. Many large corporations are among the wokest in America. Paypal, Disney, Nike, Coca-Cola, Bank of America and others support positions and organizations that are largely opposed by Republicans. When Joe Biden announced his COVID mandates, the Business Roundtable made up of the countrys largest corporations praised the move and support it wholeheartedly as do most Democrats. On the other hand, small businesses, like the majority of Republicans, oppose the mandates and are suing the administration.

Thus it is clear to me that the Republicans should concentrate their support on those individuals, groups and businesses that support Republican values. They should no longer support the wealthy, Wall Street and large corporations. If they do, they will indeed be the Dumb Party.

See more here:
Is the Republican Party Dumb? - The knoxville focus

In the typhoon of congressional brinkmanship weve witnessed this week, one detail caught my eye that could easily have been lost in the gales.

A group of 35 Republican senators signed a letter to Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden about an aspect of the House reconciliation bill that they find disturbing.

As you know, current marriage penalties occur when a households overall tax bill increases due to a couple marrying and filing taxes jointly. ... Unfortunately, despite its original rollout as part of the American Families Plan, the current draft of the reconciliation bill takes an existing marriage penalty in the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and makes it significantly worse. This is not the only marriage penalty created or worsened by the partisan bill.

For the record, I think this objection is completely sound. If theres one thing the social science literature is virtually unanimous about, its that two parents are better than one. And while marriage isnt essential to ensuring that a child grows up in a stable home some cohabiting parents stay together for decades, and some single parents provide very stable homes the association is extremely strong. Anyone concerned about child poverty needs to be concerned about marriage. Kids who grow up in two-parent families have a poverty rate of 7.5%, compared with 36.5% of those raised in single-parent homes.

Its not just poverty. Kids raised in stable homes without a revolving door of new adult partners for their parents and new stepsiblings (actual or de facto) for themselves are healthier physically and psychologically. They are less likely to struggle in school, get in trouble with the law, engage in risky behaviors or get depressed and commit suicide. The United States has the dubious distinction of having more children living with only one adult (23%) than any other nation on earth. A Pew survey of 130 countries found that the global average is 7%.

This link between marriage and good outcomes for children is so robust that scholars across the political divide agree on it, though they may differ on what to do about it, or about whether it is even possible to do anything about the growing percentage of children growing up in single-parent homes.

Government efforts to encourage marriage, such as those undertaken by the George W. Bush administration, were well-intentioned flops. They included funding for programs that offered counseling for new mothers on the virtues of marriage as well as couples therapy and public service announcements featuring celebrities. The divorce/unwed parenting numbers didnt respond. (Divorce has been trending down since its peak in 1980, but the percentage of children growing up in single-parent homes has not decreased due to the rise of unwed childbearing.)

The governments failure to affect matrimony should surprise exactly no one. For one thing, the programs didnt last long, but thats probably for the best. A behavior as complex as choosing whether or not to marry is unlikely to be affected by government encouragement. Its the same with other behaviors. Remember the Presidents Challenge to eat healthy and exercise more? That was another Bush initiative. These hortatory programs have a long pedigree. President Dwight Eisenhower founded the Presidents Council on Youth Fitness in 1956. Rates of obesity have stubbornly increased in every decade since.

This is not to say that we should throw up our hands. Cultural change happens all the time. Just consider how much weve been able to curb drunk driving over the past 25 years due to changing mores and the activism of civil society groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

But there is one huge thing the government can do: stop making things worse. Every tax or safety net-related marriage penalty should be sandblasted out of the code. The Republican senators are completely right about this. If it means the programs cost more, so be it. Its worth it.

This is precisely the kind of perspective we need a healthy conservative party to advance. We need a party that is focused on the importance of the mediating institutions in society families, churches, schools and community organizations rather than simply on individuals and government. This is too frequently a blind spot for Democrats.

But todays Republican Party has forfeited the benefit of the doubt. You need a certain moral standing to be taken seriously on matters like the marriage penalty. You rely on voters to believe that you are at least partly motivated by good policy.

But when Sen. Mitch McConnell cynically filibusters a bill to raise the debt ceiling to cover bills his party helped to rack up; when Republicans open their ranks to the likes of Reps. Paul Gosar, Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene; when the party thwarts basic public health measures like vaccines and masks; and when the party closes ranks around former President Donald Trump by blocking an independent commission to investigate the Jan. 6 riot, well, people will doubt your bona fides.

Republicans are also endangering our democracy with their embrace of Trumps election fraud fantasy. Thats the most urgent threat. But its also a loss for this country that the Republican Party is discrediting conservatism, because we cant do without it.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the Beg to Differ podcast.

Send letters to letters@suntimes.com.

Read more:
What we lost when the Republican Party lost itself | Charen - Chicago Sun-Times

President Joe Biden said on Saturday that Republican efforts to block the US' ability to pay its bills on time would be "unconscionable."

Congress has about two weeks to raise or suspend the debt ceiling to avert what could be a catastrophic hit to the economy, ranging from delays in Social Security checks to seniors, turmoil in financial markets, cuts to safety net programs, and even a spike in interest rates.

Republicans, led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, have signaled they could try to block the effort to lift the debt ceiling and torpedo Biden's economic goals. McConnell has remained adamantthat raising the debt limit is something only Democrats must do. The US has never before defaulted on its debts.

"I hope that Republicans won't be so irresponsible as to refuse to raise the debt limit and to filibuster," Biden told reporters on Saturday. "That would be totally unconscionable. That's never been done before."

Raising the debt ceiling allows the US government to pay back what it owes, and the limit had to be lifted this year regardless of Biden's spending plans. Democrats are pressing Republicans to help raise it, arguing another $7.8 trillion in debt was racked up under President Donald Trump. Republicans also raised or suspended the debt limit three times under the Trump administration.

Democrats' best bet for lifting the debt ceiling on their own is reconciliation, an arduous, time-consuming procedure governed by strict budgetary rules. It also allows certain bills to be passed with just a 50-vote majority.

Biden said on Saturday that "everybody is frustrated" following a week of setbacks and squabbles over the debt limit and his economic agenda, but he added that he's confident both an infrastructure bill and a $3.5 trillion social spending bill will ultimately be passed by Congress.

Democrats need to keep the government funded while also keeping their promises to pass a $550 billion investment in US roads, bridges, and railroads as well as funding for childcare, healthcare, and fighting climate change. Two moderate Democratic senators are uneasy with the magnitude of the proposed changes and want the $3.5 trillion social spending bill to be trimmed.

Biden said he is "going to work like hell to make sure we get both these passed," adding that both plans have the support of a majority of Americans.

"There's nothing in any of these pieces of legislation that's radical, that is unreasonable," he said, adding he would travel the country to win more support for both bills. "I believe I can get this done."

See more here:
Biden calls Republican effort to block an increase to the debt limit 'irresponsible' - Business Insider