Archive for the ‘Republican’ Category

Murphy signs $9.9B borrowing bill, NJ Republicans sue in court to block it – NJBIZ

Gov. Phil Murphy approved a bill Thursday evening allowing the state borrow up to $9.9 billion to aid its COVID-19-ravaged budgetonly for the state Republican party to file suit soon after, arguing that the move is unconstitutional.

GOP lawmakers and the states Republican Party filed the suitThursday evening at the Mercer County Superior Court. It lists the New Jersey State Republican Committee and GOP lawmakers from both the Assembly and Senate.

The borrowing plan would sidestep voter approval typically required when the state bonds money and could leave New Jerseys taxpayers on the hook for upward of 35 years.

Under the deal that Murphy struck last week with Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin, D-19th District, and Senate President Stephen Sweeney, D-3rd District, the state would bond up to $2.7 billion through September the end of the three-month extension of the current budget and another $7.2 billion between Oct. 1 and the end of June 2021.

The pandemic has ground economic activity to a halt, causing billions of dollars in state tax revenue to dry up. Murphy plans to cut or delay $5.3 billion through Oct. 1, and the state is facing a $7.2 billion budget hole.

ButMurphy has indicated its too early to tell how the borrowed money would be spent.

A four-person panel in the state Legislature would have to okay any borrowing and accompanying spending that Murphy wants to pursue.Coughlin and Sweeney will likely be two of the members, along with Senate Budget Chair Paul Sarlo, D-36th District, and Assembly Budget Chair Eliana Pintor-Marin, D-29th District.

Gov. Phil Murphy speaks at his daily COVID-19 press briefing at the War Memorial in Trenton on June 3, 2020. RICH HUNDLEY, THE TRENTONIAN

The passage of this legislation is an important step in New Jerseys recovery from the economic ravages of the COVID-19 pandemic, Murphy said in a Thursday evening statement, hours after the Legislature sent him the bill. While this is by no means a silver bullet, the ability to responsibly borrow is essential to meeting our fiscal needs in the coming year.

Parts of the borrowing, done under a Federal Reserve program, would be paid back in between three to five years; bonding through the private market could take decades to pay back.

The measure was passed in the Assembly hours after the Senate approved it, along party lines in both houses, with the Democratic majority supporting the bill, aware of the looming legal challenge.

Proponents argue that the plan is necessary to keep afloat a vast array of public and social service programs, ranging from K-12 education to police and emergency services, teachers, and the states pension payments.

But according to one report from the state Legislatures nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services, the state could not bond out money to use for general operating expenses, and doing so would be unconstitutional.

The Republican legal challenge cites thatOLS opinion, as well as a 2004 state Supreme Court case limiting how the state could use borrowed money.

The Constitution of the state of New Jersey does not allow you to do what youre proposing to do, Assemblyman Jay Webber, R-26th District, said during the Thursday floor debate in the lower house.

Republicans also worried that the bill would lead to tax increases, and the legislation does in fact allow for the state to increase the property and sales tax rates if it cannot come up with the money to finance the debt.

Pintor Marin

Sarlo assured on Thursday and during a Senate hearing earlier in the week that tax increases, at least for now, are being kept off the table.

Still, Murphy and Democrats in the Legislature argue that the state constitution will be on their side in this matter, with Pintor-Marin, during the Assembly session, citing a legal opinion from the state attorney generals office that backs the plan.

[W]hats your plan B, folks out there? What else do you think we should be doing? Its just ridiculous the absence of viable alternative public policy from folks who are whining about this, Murphy responded earlier this week.

Here is the original post:
Murphy signs $9.9B borrowing bill, NJ Republicans sue in court to block it - NJBIZ

The signs of a Democratic landslide are everywhere – CNN

* President Trump's ratings on his handling of the coronavirus pandemic continue to collapse. In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, just 38% approved of how Trump has dealt with the virus while 60% disapproved. Back in March, 51% approved of how Trump was handling the pandemic while 45% disapproved in that same poll. As the public has soured on Trump's ability to deal with the coronavirus pandemic, it has also moved heavily in Joe Biden's favor in general election polling. The former vice president leads Trump by 15 and 11 points in two new national polls released this week.

* Democrats have a double-digit lead in party identification. In a new Gallup number, 50% of Americans identify as Democrats or Democratic leaners while 39% describe themselves as Republicans or Republican leaners. That's a major shift from January when Republicans had a 47% to 45% edge on party ID in Gallup polling and a rapid acceleration of Democrats' advantage since even May when Democrats had a 3-point edge on the party ID question.

"That fundraising difference is even larger in swing districts currently held by well-funded Democratic incumbents.

"Recent filings show that Democrats are widening the gap. In 13 races holding primaries in June and July that are considered competitive by the Cook Political Report, incumbent Democrats have 9 times more money in the bank -- $40 million to $4.5 million -- than the best-funded Republican challengers."

Political handicappers are taking notice.

"President Trump's abysmal polling since the pandemic began is seriously jeopardizing down-ballot GOP fortunes. We may be approaching the point at which dozens of House Republicans will need to decide whether to cut the president loose and run on a "check and balance" message, offering voters insurance against congressional Democrats moving too far left under a potential Biden administration....

"...Republicans began the cycle hoping to pick up 18 seats to win the majority back. Now they're just trying to avoid a repeat of 2008, when they not only lost the presidency but got swamped by Democrats' money and lost even more House seats after losing 30 seats and control two years earlier. For the first time this cycle, Democrats have at least as good a chance at gaining House seats as Republicans on a net basis."

"The Senate has been in play for at least nine months, but Democratic chances of winning control of the chamber have improved significantly in the last few weeks....

"...Democrats need a net gain of four seats for a majority, but can control the Senate by gaining three seats and winning the White House. With less than four months to go before Election Day, the most likely outcome is a Democratic net gain of 3-5 Senate seats. Since Biden has a clear advantage in the presidential race, that means Democrats are more likely than not to win control of the Senate."

"Trump is extremely unlikely to win if the polls continue to look the way they do now. And if these numbers represent a new normal, we need to account for the possibility that this election won't be particularly close, and that new states may come into play. In other words, if the national picture remains bleak for Trump, then the slippage he's seen from earlier this year wouldn't just be limited to a handful of swing states."

In short: All the signs are there that this could be a landslide up and down the ballot for Democrats. Yes, things could change between now and November 3. But, given Trump's obstinacy in refusing to admit his errors in dealing with the coronavirus and the current spikes in some of the most populous states in the country, such a turnaround seems very, very unlikely at the moment.

Read more here:
The signs of a Democratic landslide are everywhere - CNN

Top House Republican threatens to cut funding to states, cities that don’t protect statues – Reuters

FILE PHOTO: House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) speaks during a House Judiciary Committee hearing to discuss police brutality and racial profiling, in Washington, DC, U.S. June 10, 2020. Greg Nash/Pool via REUTERS

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican leader in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced legislation on Thursday that would cut federal aid to state and local governments if they do not protect statues, after protesters attacked monuments to people who owned slaves or fought for the Confederacy.

It is wrong to erase our history, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said in a statement, criticizing left-wing mobs who have attacked statues across the United States.

Under his bill, introduced with fellow Republican Representatives Jim Jordan and Sam Graves, some federal funds would be withheld if local governments do not restore order or arrest rioters.

During national - and international - protests against racial injustice sparked by the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May some demonstrators have taken down or vandalized statues of historical figures such as Robert E. Lee, who led Confederate troops against the United States, and Christopher Columbus.

Republican President Donald Trump, who is campaigning for re-election in November, has harshly criticized such protesters, and criticized U.S. lawmakers who want to remove monuments to those who owned slaves and fought against U.S. forces in the 1860s Civil War.

Trump has threatened decades-long prison terms for those who deface monuments or statues.

McCarthy introduced his bill as Democrats pushed legislation to remove monuments to slave owners and those who supported slavery from the U.S. Capitol in Washington.

On Thursday, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she expected the House would pass such legislation next week or the week after.

Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; editing by Jonathan Oatis

The rest is here:
Top House Republican threatens to cut funding to states, cities that don't protect statues - Reuters

The QAnon Candidates Are Coming. Are Republicans Ready? – The New York Times

Its not like a QAnon supporter went down a path where they got into George Bush and then started to read Ronald Reagans speeches, and then bought Milton Friedmans Capitalism and Freedom, and then believed in satanic baby eaters, said Joseph Uscinski, a professor at the University of Miami who studies fringe groups. It doesnt work like that.

Mr. Trump won by saying that he wanted to drain the swamp, Dr. Uscinski said. By doing that, he essentially built a coalition of people with anti-establishment views. Those who believe in QAnon, the professor added, are probably the most extreme part of that coalition.

In Western Colorado late last month, Lauren Boebert, a gun-rights activist who has made approving comments about QAnon, beat a five-term Republican incumbent and will now defend the sprawling district in November. In recent weeks she told the QAnon-aligned web show Steel Truth that everything Ive heard of Q I hope this is real.

In a recent interview, Ms. Boebert said she was not a follower of the group. But, she added, I dont believe thats a radical notion to want to get rid of people trying to undermine the president of the United States.

In Southern California, Mike Cargile, who is challenging an incumbent Democrat for a House seat, includes #WWG1WGA in his Twitter bio, a shortened version of the QAnon motto Where We Go One We Go All. He has repeated many of the groups racist theories about Mr. Obama and Black Americans.

In an emailed response to questions, Mr. Cargile said that he sought only to discover the truth and that Americans needed to resist Marxists efforts to deceive and divide.

He said well see what becomes of the QAnon theories. But, he added, all Americans should be alarmed by the efforts of the presidents opponents in Washington, and even more so when we discover that the saboteurs and propagators are the very men and women tasked with safeguarding our system of Justice.

Here is the original post:
The QAnon Candidates Are Coming. Are Republicans Ready? - The New York Times

Republican Kansas statehouse candidates on the issues: The state’s response to COVID-19 – Shawnee Mission Post

Last month, we asked our readers what issues they wanted to hear the candidates running for office address ahead of this summers primary elections. Based on the input we received, we developed a five-item questionnaire for Republican candidates running for seats in the Kansas House and Senate.

Well be publishing the candidates responses to one item per day each day this week. Today were publishing the candidates responses to item four:

The governors stay-at-home orders during the initial COVID-19 outbreak in Kansas sparked a debate about the role of government in working to ensure the publics health. Were the state governments actions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 justified? What role do you believe the state should be taking in addressing the pandemic?

Since the very beginning of the outbreak, I have advocated for measured responses. Certainly, some of the actions were appropriate, such as delays on tax payments and the like. I believe that at the outset, the initial two-week lockdown was understandable and appropriate as we got our arms around the problem. However, I become concerned about a prolonged lockdown or other types of one-size fits all statewide mandates and regulations I believe that policy questions are generally best left to local officials. When equipped with reliable information and recommendations, I trust our local businesses and our citizens to make decisions.

It is important that all branches of government work together to address the COVID crisis. We made the correct choice at the start to be cautious, but feel that we delayed a re-opening plan too long. This caused a much larger backlash and opened rapidly faster instead of providing a better slow open starting earlier. I think all levels of government should be playing an important role in addressing this health crisis. One size fits all solutions rarely work well in Kansas and that is especially true here. We delegated more power to county commissions because they are better equipped to make decisions for their community than the state is. The states role should be to support the counties, cities, and school boards as they make the decisions that make most sense for them. What Johnson County needs is very different than Russell County.

We all want Kansans to be safe. Lives and livelihoods across Kansas must be protected. Our state is diverse in its population density, and our businesses. Its not one-size-fits all. Therefore, the role of state government in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic is to inform the public about the virus risks, and educate Kansans about responses. Kansans across the state, when well-informed, should be able to use that information and determine what measures to take. Healthcare professionals, hospitals, restaurants, gyms, hair and nail salons, schools, and industries across the board asked for more local control on the issue, and asked the state legislature for assistance in safely re-opening when we were in Special Session in June. I took a stand and supported them, while my opponent abstained from voting.

State government should not be in the business of deciding which businesses stay open, or how they operate, and which close and ultimately fail. We can all make decisions about risks when well-informed, and therefore, state-wide, across the board mandates generally are not a reasonable response.

The governors stay-at-home order during the initial COVID-19 outbreak was entirely justified and no-doubt prevented Kansas from falling victim to many more cases of the virus. As evidenced by the huge outbreaks in other states without this type of order, cases have multiplied. Current trends indicate that re-opening in states has also been responsible for an increase. The public needs to listen to our doctors at the national and local levels and our local government officials who are knowledgeable about our states situation.

As to the lockdown, and the wide array of executive orders issued at both the state and local levels of governance, my general opinion is that these orders are overbearing. As to the constitutionality of each individual order, I cannot give a definite answer, excluding that of governor Kellys executive order which prohibited churches from gathering. This order is certainly unconstitutional, both at the state and federal level because it infringes on the right to practice religion. Both the Kansas and our national constitution prohibit the government from infringing on the religious beliefs of the individual. Some may say that given the exceptional circumstances, and given that attending a church service could potentially place others in danger of contracting the virus, an exception to both the state and federal constitutions would be constitutionally permissible. This is wrong however, as neither the state nor the federal constitution make any mention of an exception regarding a pandemic. The constitution is very clear on this issue, and to act otherwise is misguided. Imagine if you will, the founding fathers speaking to one another at the signing of the constitution, and one says to the other wait so this doesnt count if they get sick right? Obviously the founding fathers had no intention of making any exception to religious freedom.

Another aspect of the lock down orders I find disturbing, is this notion of an executive order, as if the governor or the mayor were a king of sorts, dictating merely by a simple decree, and without the consent of the legislature, how his or her citizens might behave. I think that these laws designed to protect our health, should at the minimum be crafted and enacted with the consent of the legislature. There doesnt seem to be any effort on the part of governor Kelly, or that of any other executive power at the city or county level, to work with their own legislative bodies, rather, they seem to be dictating these rules at their own whim.

Finally, I am skeptical as to the effectiveness of these measures, this idea that, almost like a light switch, a law can stop the spread of the virus. Surely we are not so foolish as to think that a simple rule will stop this virus right? For that matter, it is difficult to fully enforce these measures in the first place. I see many people on a daily basis who are either wearing their mask improperly, or refusing to wear one entirely. I also dont think we know enough about this virus to make any informed policy decisions to begin with.

Balancing the state budget focus changed with COVID19. now is the time to reduce spending, focus on getting business back open and supporting their efforts in the process. Legislators need to seriously repair the spending within the state by merging workforces, increase efficiency, improve technology while reducing overhead, all noted in the Alverez Marcel 2016 report. While addressing the pandemic, the guidance and recommendations should be from the local Health Departments. Our public health is system is good and effective, a voice their own communitys wellness, disease prevention and health.

Less government involvement in health care+ more health promotion = Healthy Kansas.

The governors stay-at-home orders during the initial COVID-19 outbreak in Kansas sparked a debate about the role of government in working to ensure the publics health. Were the state governments actions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 justified? What role do you believe the state should be taking in addressing the pandemic?

The actions taken by the executive branch, including the Kansas Department of Health and Environment were not only justified, but proved to be effective in keeping Kansans safe. We are now seeing a surge in infections because restrictions were lifted too soon and many citizens did not take the pandemic seriously. Had we followed protocol when first called for, our economy would be open and thriving today. Instead, we are back where we started. The economy could be open and thriving if everyone had worn masks, and continue to wear masks. Listen and pay attention to science.

The role of the state is to protect the safety of all citizens. That is why we have public safety organizations such as police and fire departments. The role of the state should be to assure our safety, just as the other protective agencies provide. We should respect health protections just as we do police and fire.

The governors stay-at-home orders during the initial COVID-19 outbreak in Kansas sparked a debate about the role of government in working to ensure the publics health. Were the state governments actions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 justified? What role do you believe the state should be taking in addressing the pandemic?I believe initially the state governments actions were justified, but as more information became available, the state should have allowed businesses to make the choice whether or not to reopen based on safety measures that were suggested. Small businesses that were shut down during the pandemic could have managed social distancing, etc. as easily as the big box stores.

Tomorrow well publish the candidates responses to item five:

Do you support the entire platform of the Kansas Republican Party that was adopted in 2018? If not, which parts dont you support and why?

Read this article:
Republican Kansas statehouse candidates on the issues: The state's response to COVID-19 - Shawnee Mission Post