Mediaboss Marketing

On Tuesday, US President Joe Biden and leading NATO powers escalated the war provocations against Russia by announcing the imposition of substantial economic sanctions in response to Russian President Vladimir Putins recognition of the independence of Donetsk and Lugansk from Ukraine.

In the United States, a bipartisan consensus is emerging for even greater military and economic pressure to be brought to bear against Russia, increasing the risk of a war between nuclear-armed powers. This consensus has brought together a broad spectrum of the political establishment, from the Republican right to the so-called progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

This ruling class consensus is part of an attempt by the Biden administration to effect a new national unity aimed at securing American imperialisms interests abroad, controlling the domestic political crisis and distracting from growing inflation and a daily US COVID-19 death toll of over 2,000 people.

Democrats and Republicans alike are expressing criticism that the Biden administration had been insufficiently ruthless in measures taken against Russia.

Ultra-right Republican Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) declared, Biden-Harris officials are to an enormous extent directly responsible for this crisis. He and his administration instead settled for an endlessly deferred and wholly uncredible strategy of responding to Putins aggression after an invasion.

A leading Trump supporter in the House, Representative Jim Banks (R-Indiana), said that he is still hopeful that President Biden will show the backbone thats been missing all along and well hit Putin where it counts, by restoring the Trump sanctions on Nord Stream 2.

Anti-Trump Republicans were less critical of Biden and equally enthusiastic about a belligerent policy towards Russia. MSNBCs Andrea Mitchell welcomed former Trump national security advisor John Bolton on her program yesterday, providing him a chance to demand Biden take an even more aggressive stance toward Russia.

NBC wrote that Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) has been on the phone all morning working with Democrats on an emergency supplemental funding package aimed at expanding sanctions, as well as military aid for the Ukrainian government.

Biden faces substantial pressure from within the Democratic Party as well. Representative Jim Hines (D-Connecticut) stated that Biden was wrong for not immediately calling Russias actions in Donetsk and Lugansk an invasion, tweeting, If you know the history of aggressive dictators, you know its critical not to lose clarity. Putin is invading Ukraine. Full stop. Hes done it before, and he will do it again if we dont impose full sanctions.

Senator Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey) similarly declared, I think we can stop equivocating as to whether we have an invasion or not. I think the West, the United States has to make it very clear to Putin that the consequences begin now.

Three of the Democrats who were part of the official congressional delegation to the Munich Security Council last weekend were former CIA, military and State Department officials, including Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, Jason Crow of Colorado and Tom Malinowski of New Jersey. Slotkin, a longtime CIA and National Security Council official, emphasized the broader geopolitical issues in the Ukraine confrontation, tweeting, Make no mistake: this is about more than just Russia and Ukraine. China is watching our every move to see if the international community will stand up against Putins aggression. This is a moment to show that we wont let them rewrite the next century.

Democrats and Republicans are working together to force the Biden administration to launch more aggressive sanctions. In an article titled Biden faces bipartisan calls for more punishing Russian sanctions, NBC reported yesterday that lawmakers across the political spectrum called on President Biden to impose crushing new sanctions, including Bidens Democratic allies in Congress, as well as the Republican minority.

In the House, Democrats and Republicans are introducing the SUPPORT Act to assess how American imperialism can provide weapons to a Ukrainian military. Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Illinois) said, We need to get ready to assist our Ukrainian friends secure their sovereignty if the Russians invade, and second, we need to send a strong message to the Russians and others that the costs of invading Ukraine will be prohibitive. The Ukrainian military includes neo-Nazi outfits like the Azov Battalion.

In the Senate, a similar bill introduced by Senator Menendez is sponsored by 80 percent of Senate Democrats, including self-described progressives like Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Jeff Merkley of Oregon.

The bipartisan delegation of Democratic and Republican senators and representatives returned from the Munich Security Conference this weekend and issued a joint statement calling for emergency legislation to further fund Ukraines military. The statement, signed by 21 legislators, reads:

It now appears increasingly likely that Russian forces will initiate hostilities against a free and peaceful Ukraine. We as a bipartisan delegation will bring home the same unity and resolve we have seen among our Atlantic allies against Russian aggression. We pledge to work toward whatever emergency supplemental legislation will best support our NATO allies and the people of Ukraine and support freedom and safety around the world. No matter what happens in the coming days, we must assure that the dictator Putin and his corrupt oligarchs pay a devastating price for their decisions.

The delegations emphasis on the unity of the Republican and Democratic delegations underscores a fundamental purpose of the present drive to war. Racked by immense internal divisions that are exacerbated by the worsening coronavirus pandemic, spiraling inflation and the ongoing threat of fascist coup plotting at home, the American ruling class is attempting to use a foreign conflict to suppress social discontent at home.

As Representative Betty McCollum (D-Minnesota) said at a press conference held by the Munich congressional delegation: Were bicameral, were bipartisan, were united. NATOs united, the EUs united and were ready to do what it takes if Russia walks away.

A particularly important role in the bipartisan warmongering is being played by the self-styled progressive Democrats.

Senator Bernie Sanders issued a belligerent statement yesterday in support of Bidens sanctions against Russia, placing blame entirely on Russia for the present crisis and making no reference to the role of NATO and the United States:

Vladimir Putins latest invasion of Ukraine is an indefensible violation of international law, regardless of whatever false pretext he offers. There has always been a diplomatic solution to this situation. Tragically, Putin appears intent on rejecting it. The United States must now work with our allies and the international community to impose serious sanctions on Putin and his oligarchs.

Sanders himself voted to support the 1999 US war against Serbia, which was also an indefensible violation of international law, and the Clinton administrations claims of genocide were also false. The same is true of the US invasion of Afghanistan, which Sanders also voted to support.

In the House, Democratic Socialists of America member Jamaal Bowman (D-New York) shared a tweet from former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul comparing Putin to Hitler, denouncing Russia for taking territory from smaller powers, and calling for the US to respond now. Right now. Declaring his support for these threats, Bowman stated, Absolutely devastating. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) has not issued a single tweet opposing Bidens war provocations.

On Saturday, February 26, the World Socialist Web Site is hosting an international online webinar to oppose the US-NATO drive to war against Russia. In this webinar, an international panel of leading members of the International Committee of the Fourth International and WSWS writers will review the causes and consequences of the US-NATO war drive and present the political basis for a fight against war. Register here.

Read the original here:
Bipartisan congressional war consensus emerges, bringing together progressive left and Republican right - WSWS

There is a tension between strong employment rights, a supportive welfare state, equal rights for migrants and locals, and an open, non-selective immigration policy that creates hard decisions for progressive politicians but the quandary should not be avoided, says Alan Manning.

Those on the progressive side of politics tend to be in favour of strong employment rights for workers and a generous welfare state for those unable to work, whether because of unemployment or sickness/disability. And when it comes to migration policy, they tend to be in favour of equal rights for locals and migrants and an immigration policy that is relatively open and non-selective.

There are ways in which one can use the academic literature on the impacts of immigration to argue that one can have all the above:the studies that find that, at worst, migration only slightly depresses the wages of locals; and that migrants, taken as a whole, often pay slightly more in taxes than they receive in benefits and public services.

While these studies show that immigration does not necessarily reduce wages or worsen the public finances, there are risks in using this research to draw universal conclusions about the impact of immigration, regardless of the level, or type, of immigration. There are reasons to think their findings apply mostly to the situation under the current restrictions on immigration, restrictions which are designed to limit the impact on wages and the public finances.

To see that there are circumstances where immigration may reduce wages, consider the Gulf and Singapore where full-time live-in domestic help can be hired for very low salaries, perhaps 8,000 a year. Many local households take advantage of this and this migration benefits locals. But it comes at the cost of these migrants having fewer rights than locals with, for example, no prospect of ever becoming a citizen. As Philip Martin and Martin Ruhs have written, there seems to a trade-off between the number of migrants and the rights those migrants have.

In the UK, hiring live-in domestic help costs so much that very few households can afford it. It is not that the migrants going to the Gulf or Singapore want to go there and not to the UK. But the combination of UK labour laws (like the minimum wage or collective bargaining) and the immigration rules (which would not allow migrants into the country) prevent them from migrating to the UK. These rules protect locals from the possibility that migrants might depress wages but have the impact of limiting the demand for work permits from employers, making the immigration system more restrictive as a result. The greater the protections for locals, the lower the level of immigration is likely to be.

To keep immigration open, one could expand the types of immigration that do not require a job offer. Some of these migrants might end up not working at all and what happens then is important. If there are no recourse to public funds policies, migrants will have fewer rights than locals but there is little cost to the locals of sustaining the migrants without work. However, these migrants will end up among the poorest people in our society. Their children could be in extreme poverty yet will go on to become citizens. This can all be mitigated by giving migrants the same access to the welfare state as locals, but then one risks a negative effect on the public finances. Most studies find that the impact of migrants, taken as a whole, on the public finances is small (sometimes positive, sometimes negative) but there are huge differences in the net contribution at the individual level, largely based around whether someone is in work or not. Expand immigration routes that do not require a job offer, prevent very low wages, and give equal access to the welfare state and it is quite possible that this will worsen the public finances.

In 2004, David Goodhart formulated the progressive dilemma that immigration leads to increased diversity that threatens the sense of solidarity within the community which sustains the welfare state. One can debate whether one can create a common identity to avoid this, but some types of immigration can undermine the welfare states fiscal sustainability. Ensuring this does not happen leads us down the path of a more restrictive, selective immigration policy.

Taken individually, the objectives of (1) strong employment rights, (2) a supportive welfare state, (3) equal rights for locals and migrants, (4) a relatively open, non-selective immigration policy all seem achievable. There are often policies that can improve outcomes in one dimension without harming the others. But, deep down, there are tensions between them. For progressives who see all the objectives as laudable, there is then a very uncomfortable decision to make about how to balance them. A decision so uncomfortable that it is very tempting to convince oneself there is no tension at all. But this does not make the tension go away and risks leaving the immigration policy space to those with a less progressive vision of the good society, who are more than happy to sacrifice one of these objectives for others. How to design an immigration policy with an appropriate balance between the competing objectives is the progressive quandary.

____________________

About the Author

Alan Manning is Professor of Economics in the Department of Economics at LSE, and co-director of the community wellbeing programme at LSE CEP. His research generally covers labour markets, with a focus on imperfect competition (monopsony), minimum wages, job polarisation, immigration, and gender. On immigration, his interests expand beyond the economy to issues such as social housing, minority groups, and identity.

Photo by Volodymyr Hryshchenko on Unsplash.

Here is the original post:
The progressive quandary: how to design an immigration policy that balances competing objectives - British Politics and Policy at LSE

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Former Vice President Mike Pence is stepping up his public activity in support of the Republican Party and GOP candidates, and continuing to build upon U.S. diplomacy in Israel.

Fox News Digital has learned that Pence will head to Long Island, New York, to fundraise for Republican Rep. Lee Zeldin, the leading contender for the GOP gubernatorial nomination in the Empire State. The former vice president is expected to raise at least half a million dollars for Zeldin during the event, according to a source close to Pence.

Then, on March 7 Pence will depart to Israel to speak at Ariel University in Israel, and receive an honorary degree. Former Ambassador David Friedman is also being recognized at the event.

Former Vice President Mike Pence gives remarks to a small crowd on Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2021 at Columbus Municipal Airport in Columbus, Indiana.

While in Israel, Pence will also meet with sitting Prime MinisterNaftali Bennettand separately with former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Pence will also pay respects to the widow of Sheldon Adelson, a business magnate who made his fortune developing property in Las Vegas. He was a major GOP donor and a key financier of pro-Israeli efforts. Adelson passed away last month at the age of 87.

FORMER VP MIKE PENCE REJECTS TRUMP CLAIM HE COULD HAVE INTERVENED IN 2020 ELECTION, CALLS IT UN-AMERICAN

The former vice president has been a consistent supporter of Israel in U.S. policy and diplomacy throughout his career. In November 2021, Pence condemned President Biden over his administration's treatment of Israel.

"Make no mistake about it, President Joe Biden has turned his back on Israel," Pence charged as he addressed the Republican Jewish Coalition's influential annual leadership meeting.

Biden has "restored funding for the Palestinian Authority, announced his intention to rejoin the Iran Nuclear Deal, and now the Biden administration is planning to open a consulate in Jerusalem for the Palestinian people," Pence told the gathering.

Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., at a press conference on May 20, 2021 in Washington, D.C. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Pence has also occupied a fluid role in GOP politics since his term as vice president and is ramping up speeches and events in some key early voting states, including South Carolina, Iowa and New Hampshire.

He is set to deliver remarks at a private Christian university's commencement ceremony when he returns in late April to South Carolina, the state that holds the third contest in the Republican Partys presidential nominating calendar. In addition, he will return to South Carolina in May to address a dinner on behalf of the Carolina Pregnancy Center, a Christian facility that provides counseling, supplies and adoption services to women who decide to go through with unplanned pregnancies.

Pence also recently concluded two trips to New Hampshire, the state that hosts the first presidential election primary., and attended the Feenstra Family Picnic over the summer in Iowa.

The multiple stops in the early voting states have sparked considerable speculation that Pence is likely gearing up for a bid for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.

The Indiana Republican has also hit the campaign trail in Virginia, in support of newly elected Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin, endorsed Indiana Sen. Todd Young's senate re-election campaign and spoke at a NRCC event thrown by GOP Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Despite his work on behalf of the Republican Party, Pence remains at odds with many Trump supporters, and the former president himself, who continue to insist without evidence that the 2020 presidential election was illegitimate.

Pence even recently called the former president out by name during a speech earlier this month, saying "President Trump is wrong."

"I heard this week, President Trump said I had the right to overturn the election. President Trump is wrong I had no right to overturn the election," Pence said to conservative lawyers at a Federalist Society event.

Vice President Mike Pence is in the Capitol during the certification of Electoral College ballots in the presidential election, (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Zeldin will also reportedly be holding a fundraiser at Trump's Mar-a-Lago at the start of April.

Fox News' Brie Stimson and Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.

Go here to see the original:
Pence to fundraise for Lee Zeldin in NY, travel to Israel to meet with PM Bennett and receive honorary degree - Fox News

The TAKE with Averi Harper

President Joe Biden has long promised "swift and severe costs" to Russia if it were to invade Ukraine. Now, after Russian President Vladimir Putin's declaration of a "special military operation," Biden has his chance to deliver on that promise.

Biden is slated to lay out "further consequences" for Russia in remarks from the White House Thursday. Explosions could be heard in Kyiv overnight, a possible signifier of a broader attack.

The president issued a sobering statement in response, calling the attack "unprovoked and unjustified."

"Russia alone is responsible for the death and destruction this attack will bring, and the United States and its Allies and partners will respond in a united and decisive way. The world will hold Russia accountable," Biden said in a statement.

The state flag of Russia stands outside the Consulate General of the Russian Federation in Kharkiv, northeastern Ukraine, Feb. 23, 2022.

The Biden administration had begun to roll out a "first tranche" sanctions, related to Russian banks, oligarchs and the natural gas pipeline Nord Stream 2. Some GOP lawmakers have criticized Biden of not going far enough on sanctions, which haven't resulted in Russia reversing course.

But even as tensions escalate and Ukraine braces for a full-scale attack, the White House reiterated Biden's pledge not to send U.S. troops into Ukraine.

"We are not going to be in a war with Russia or putting military troops on the ground in Ukraine fighting Russia," White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters Wednesday.

The RUNDOWN with Alisa Wiersema

The uncertainty of this year's election calendar following redistricting is coming to a close as two political battlegrounds gain a clearer picture of their new maps.

In Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court settled on a congressional map in a 4-3 ruling following a monthslong redistricting saga. The map chosen by the court was submitted by a group of citizens and was drawn by Stanford University professor Jonathan Rodden.

A new map of congressional districts provided by the Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania is shown, Feb. 23, 2022.

The new map reflects the outcome of the 2020 Census, in which Pennsylvania lost a congressional seat. Although the court did not move the May 17 primary date, it did delay the timeline for when candidates needed to gather and file documentation to get on the ballot by a few weeks.

As reported by FiveThirtyEight, the state now has eight Republican-leaning seats, six Democratic-leaning seats and three highly competitive seats. The 17th District, which is currently represented by Rep. Conor Lamb, who is running for Senate, is one of those highly competitive areas.

Meanwhile, in North Carolina, political tensions over redistricting continued on Wednesday, as a three-judge panel rejected a GOP-backed congressional map and instituted remedial maps in its place. Overnight, the state Supreme Court denied appeals from Republican lawmakers to delay the use of the maps issued by the trial panel.

The TIP with Brittany Shepherd

It's conservatives' time to shine in the Sunshine State with the kickoff of the Conservative Political Action Conference later Thursday morning. Republican ideology is getting its first primary of sorts as moderate to far-right GOP members (and even some Democrats) flock to Orlando and plot their way toward victory for the upcoming midterm election, where they anticipate fruitful returns.

Former President Donald Trump prepares to speak at a rally at the Canyon Moon Ranch festival grounds in Florence, Ariz., Jan. 15, 2022.

Former President Donald Trump, his son Don. Jr, party allies Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz and Sen. Marco Rubio are among those receiving top billing for this dayslong celebration in Trump's new home state. Rumored GOP 2024 contenders Govs. Ron DeSantis and Kristi Noem will be in attendance. Noticeably absent is former Vice President Mike Pence, whose relationship with his former ticket-mate continues to publicly fracture. In a speech in Orlando a few weeks ago, Pence said Trump was "wrong" for suggesting he had any power in overturning election results. It's unclear if any of the Republicans present will echo Pence's message or instead dig further into false claims.

This year's CPAC is slated to have several conversations around culture-war issues that light up Republican voting bases. The event has such panels as "School Board for Dummies," "War Through Weakness, Elections Matter," "They Can't Shut Us Up!," "The Government is Dangerous to Your Health," "Sorry Stacey, you are not the Governor" and "Fire Fauci."

CPAC runs through Sunday.

NUMBER OF THE DAY, powered by FiveThirtyEight

30,000. That's the number of poll questions FiveThirtyEight has available to readers in its Latest Polls Page, which is home to virtually every public general-election poll for president, Senate, House and governor, virtually every public presidential primary poll, and virtually every public poll of the president's and vice president's approval ratings, other important politicians' favorability ratings and finally, the generic congressional ballot, or which party voters would support for Congress if the election was today. Bookmark this page as your one-stop shop for all your 2022 polling needs. And stay tuned, as we'll be rolling out new Senate, House and gubernatorial polling averages as soon as we have enough high-quality polls.

THE PLAYLIST

ABC News' "Start Here" Podcast. Start Here begins Thursday morning with ABCs Ian Pannell in Kyiv as Russian President Vladimir Putin announces military operations in Ukraine. And, the sponsor of Florida's controversial "Don't Say Gay" bill defends the legislation critics say demonizes the LGBTQ community. http://apple.co/2HPocUL

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TODAY

Download the ABC News app and select "The Note" as an item of interest to receive the day's sharpest political analysis.

The Note is a daily ABC News feature that highlights the day's top stories in politics. Please check back tomorrow for the latest.

See original here:
Biden has chance to deliver on 'severe' Russian sanctions: The Note - ABC News

We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. Specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes, Zelenskyy said on a July 25, 2019, call, the transcript of which became key evidence in Trumps first impeachment. Trump replied: I would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot, and Ukraine knows a lot about it.

Now Trump is seeking to undercut Bidens handling of the Russia-Ukraine conflict by portraying himself as better-equipped to handle Moscow. Heres a look at how other key players in Trumps first impeachment are operating during the current Ukrainian invasion:

Bill Taylor: Taylor took over as the top U.S. envoy to Ukraine after his predecessor, Marie Yovanovitch, was removed following a conspiracy theory-laden campaign by Trump allies, led by Rudy Giuliani. During the subsequent impeachment probe, Taylor testified to investigators about concerns among Trumps handpicked advisers that the then-president had tied security aid to demands for an investigation of Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and discredited theories that blamed Ukraine, rather than Russia, for interference in the 2016 election. Recently Taylor has become a frequent presence on national TV analyzing Russias incursion into Ukraine and the Wests response.

Rudy Giuliani: Trumps longtime adviser and lawyer played an integral role in pressuring Ukrainian leaders to investigate Joe Biden, who had just entered the 2020 presidential race. Giuliani aligned himself with pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs and even a Ukrainian lawmaker since deemed by intelligence agencies to be a Russian agent. In recent days, hes joined the pro-Trump chorus criticizing Bidens handling of Ukraine.

Mike Pence: Trump pushed his vice president, a key conduit between his administration and Ukraine, to skip Zelenskyys inauguration in April 2019, a decision that came as the newly elected Ukrainian president was seeking U.S. recognition to show solidarity against Russia. Pence later met with Zelenskyy in Warsaw, where they discussed Trumps decision to freeze military assistance. Pence has tangled with Trump in recent months by publicly emphasizing that he had no authority to overturn the 2020 election, but he has also piled on Biden without mentioning earlier events or his role in the impeachment saga.

Jennifer Williams, an aide to Mike Pence, and Alexander Vindman testify on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2019, during a public impeachment hearing of President Donald Trump.|Alex Brandon/AP Photo

Alexander Vindman: A national security adviser who listened in on Trumps fateful July 2019 call with Zelenskyy, he became one of the key witnesses against Trump during the 2019-2020 impeachment process. He testified that he thought Trumps call undermined national security by essentially pressuring an ally to help the presidents domestic political fortunes. Vindman was removed from his post shortly after Trumps first trial; more recently, he sued Trumps son Donald Trump Jr., Giuliani and other close Trump allies, alleging attempted intimidation during the proceedings. Since Russia began its current invasion of Ukraine, Vindman has spoken out in support of Bidens handling of the conflict.

John Bolton: The former Trump national security adviser refused to testify during the House impeachment investigation, even as other witnesses revealed he sounded grave alarms about Trumps handling of Ukraine and called Giulianis involvement a hand grenade. Instead, Bolton waited to offer testimony until just before the Senate trial as news of his impending book began to circulate and the GOP-controlled Senate denied his offer. This year, Bolton has begun vocally criticizing Bidens handling of Ukraine despite having withheld his evidence against Trump during the key moments of the impeachment probe.

Originally posted here:
How the Ukraine invasion connects to Trump's first impeachment and where the players are now - POLITICO