Media Search:



Pence trips spark further 2024 White House race speculation – Fox News

Location, location, location!

In a move that will spark further 2024 speculation, former Vice President Mike Pence will headline a major Republican Party dinner and fundraising event in early June inNew Hampshire, the state that for a century has held the first primary in the race for the White House.

Fox News was first to report this past week that Pence will headline the Hillsborough County GOPs annual Lincoln Reagan awards dinner on June 3 in Manchester, New Hampshire.

2024 BUZZ SURROUNDING PENCE, BOTH SCOTTS, CHRISTIE, AND MORE

Days before the news broke, Pence traveledto South Carolina, the state thatvotes third in the GOP's nominating calendar and holds the first southern contest in the presidential primaries, to give his first address since the end of Donald Trump's administration on Jan. 20.

"We've got to guard our values ... by offering a positive agenda to the American people, grounded in our highest ideals,"Pence spotlighted in his speech.

He then pledged: "Over the coming months, I'll have more to say about all of that."

The former vice president also touted that he'll be spending the coming months "pushing back on the liberal agenda" of President Biden's administration, which he stressed was wrong for the country.

Never too early for cattle calls

On Friday Pence spokeat a donor appreciation gathering hosted by Karl Rove, the former President George W. Bush political adviser, longtime GOP strategistand Fox News contributor. The former vice president wasnt the only potential 2024 Republican White House hopeful attending the gathering, which was held in Austin, Texas.

Also on the list wereformer Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Tim Scott of South Carolina, and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

The event, titled the "Texas Victory Committee Donor Appreciation Conference," wasnt the only cattle call this past week.

POSSIBLE WHITE HOUSE HOPEFULS SPEAK AT PRO-LIFE SUMMIT

A half-dozen potentialpresidential contenders spoke in-person Monday and Tuesday at the Susan B. Anthony List's Pro-Life Leaders Summitin Palm Beach, Florida.

Headlining the first day of the summit, which was first reported by Fox News, was former President Trump, who has repeatedly flirted with making a 2024 presidential run. And Scott keynoted the second day of the summit. Pence addressed the gathering via video.

SBA List, whose "mission is to end abortion by electing national leaders and advocating for laws that save lives, with a special calling to promote pro-life women leaders," has long attracted potential Republican White House hopefuls to its events. Social conservative voters have been a key part of the GOP base for decades.

The Trump tease continues

The former president keeps flirting with another White House run.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

A week after telling FOXBusiness Maria Bartiromo on "Mornings with Maria"that hes "100% thinking about running again," Trump told conservative pundit Candace Owens that "it's very early. But I think people are going to be very, very happy when I make a certain announcement."

"You know, for campaign finance reasons, you really can't do it too early because it becomes a whole different thing... Otherwise I think I'd give you an answer that you'd be very happy with. So we're looking at that very, very seriously," Trump added. "All I'd say is stay tuned."

Read the original post:
Pence trips spark further 2024 White House race speculation - Fox News

Investigating Jan. 6 Key Unanswered Questions for Congress and Media to Ask – Just Security

On Wednesday, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform will hold a hearing to examine the events of Jan. 6 chaired by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.). In a statement, the committee said this hearing will focus in particular on the Trump Administrations preparations in advance of January 6 and response to the attacks, and that it

will also consider the response of federal and local law enforcement agencies to the attack, and the need to establish a bipartisan, 9/11-style commission, so that Congress and the American people can fully understand the causes and circumstances that led to the January 6, 2021, insurrection.

The witnesses include:

The hearing is the first to include former high-ranking government officials who were directly involved in the events other than FBI Director Christopher Wray, who has already testified. The hearing comes after the chairs of seven House committees requested information from 16 agencies in late March. It also comes as a proposal from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to create a National Commission on Jan. 6 remains under consideration, though is apparently languishing.

There is a great deal that is still unknown about the events of Jan. 6, and discrepancies in key accounts that have been made public. In particular, little is known about the actions of President Donald Trump in the crucial hours between his rally at the Ellipse, where he encouraged his supporters to march on the Capitol, and hours later, when he finally called on them to stand down. There are key questions about attempts to push the Justice Department to take action on false voter fraud claims. And, there are inconsistencies and questionable omissions in the Pentagons public timeline that need to be addressed.

Below are key questions Congress should ask Rosen and Miller about the events of Jan. 6 and its immediate aftermath.

For Former Acting Defense Secretary Miller:

1. In prepared remarks on Jan. 7, President Trump said, I immediately deployed the National Guard and federal law enforcement to secure the building and expel the intruders.Is that true?

Background: Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows also told Sean Hannity that Trump acted quickly to deploy the National Guard on Jan. 6 and that Miller could back up that account.

2. Can you state on what occasions you or your office spoke to Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, or Meadows about the events of Jan. 6, from that day until you left office? How would you characterize those conversations?

Background: Millers chief of staff Kash Patel has said, I was talking to [White House chief of staff, Mark] Meadows, nonstop that day.

3. You apparently told a reporter that you did not try to contact Trump on Jan. 6; however, the reporter quoted another senior defense official who said, They couldnt get through. They tried to call him. Under oath now, did you or your office try to contact President Trump on Jan. 6? If so, what came of those efforts?

4. In a video interview, you said to a reporter, Would anybody have marched on the Capitol, and tried to overrun the Capitol, without the presidents speech? I think its pretty much definitive that wouldnt have happened. It seems cause-and-effect, you said. Since those statements, have you been in touch with former President Trump, or anyone directly associated with him about your remarks? What was their response?

5. In a video interview, you sought to downplay concerns about the timeframe for the response at the Capitol. You said It comes back to understanding how the military works this isnt a video game, its not Halo, its not Black Ops Call of Duty,' suggesting expectations about the speed of response were not reasonable. Since those comments, do you continue to believe that the response that day was as fast as it could have been?

6. How do you contend with D.C. Guard Commander William Walkers testimony that he had a Quick Reaction Force on standby but was specifically not given the authority to deploy it?

7. How do you contend with Major General Walkers testimony in which he said, Its a long standing process, but it can work in minutes. So for example, during the first week of June, the secretary of the Army was with me. I watched him call the Secretary of Defense [Esper] and consult with the Attorney General and respond back to me with an approval within minutes?

8. Specifically, what obstacles prevented DOD from responding more quickly to the attack on the Capitol? Were there bureaucratic steps that could be streamlined? Could individuals in the chain of command have been more responsive? Were any orders or directives issued that delayed response?

9. What explains the 36-minute gap between the time you conveyed final authorization to the Army for deployment of the National Guard and the Armys leadership informing Walker of the approval?

Background: In a Senate hearing, senior Pentagon official Robert Salesses acknowledged the failure in an exchange with Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO).

BLUNT: Hows that possible, Mr. Salessesdo you think that the decision, in the moment we were in, was made at 4:32, and the person that had to be told wasnt told for more than half an hour after the decision was made?

SALESSES: Senator, I think thatsthats an issue. There was decisions that were being made. There was communications that needed to take place. And then there was actions that had to be taken. All of that was happening at simultaneous times by different individuals. And I think that part of the challenge is that some of the delayed communications probably put some of the challenges that we had that day.

BLUNT: Well I would think so. If you have to have the communication before General Walker and the National Guard can take the action and the communication doesnt occur for over half an hour, thats a significant problem for the future if we dont figure out how the decision, the communication and the action all happen as nearly to the same time as they possibly can.

SALESSES: I agree, Senator.

10. You have been quoted as saying that Trump told you you would need 10,000 troops at the Capitol on January 6th. Why did he say this? How did you respond?

11. Who had the authority to deploy the D.C. National Guard Quick Reaction Force? Just yourself or did Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy also have the authority to do so?

12. Why did neither you nor Secretary McCarthy speak to Maj. Gen Walker that day? Was that a dereliction of leadership?

Background: Walker testified, I never talked to secretary of defense Miller and I didnt talk to the secretary of the Army.

13. Would it have been possible to remission the D.C. Guard members on traffic duty with Metropolitan Police Department to send the Guard to the Capitol when the MPD responded to urgent calls for help from U.S. Capitol Police? Did you ever receive a request for the D.C. Guard to do this?

14. On Jan. 8, during your tenure, the Department of Defense published a timeline of events leading up to and including January 6, which was later referred to by the Department of Defense in congressional testimony. Why did the Department omit significant entries in the Timeline including:

More: The DoD timeline noted one call between Walker and Sund on Jan. 6 at 1:49 p.m., but the AP reported that Sund frantically called Walker again and asked for at least 200 guard members and to send more if they are available. Why was this information left off the publicly released timeline?

15. On January 8, during your tenure, the Department of Defense published a timeline of events leading up to and including January 6, which was later referred to by the Department of Defense in written congressional testimony. The timeline states that Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy was on a significant conference call at 2:22 p.m. on Jan. 6. But McCarthy subsequently told the Washington Post he was not on the call. In his testimony under oath, D.C. National Guard Commander Walker told the Senate, We dialed in trying to get the Secretary of the Army on the call but he wasnt available.

Is the DoD timeline accurate? Was there a subsequent conversation in which McCarthy did not participate?

16. Why did the Army initially falsely deny that Lt. Gen. Charles Flynn participated in the 2:22pm call with D.C. leadership and U.S. Capitol Police? Was it a bungled approach to fears of political fallout should his participation become public?

Background: The brother of Trumps former national security adviser Michael Flynn was on the call, although his participation in this key meeting was initially strongly and repeatedly denied by the Army for several days. HE WAS NOT IN ANY OF THE MEETINGS! an Army official said, for example, in an email to The Post. The Army and Flynn later admitted he was on the call.

17. Did Maj. Gen. Timothy Gowen, the adjutant general of the Maryland National Guard, get rebuffed by the Pentagon. The general ... kept running it up the flagpole, and we dont have authorization, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan has said.

18. What steps were taken to preserve documents related to the events of Jan. 6? If no steps were taken, why not?

19. In the aftermath of the attack, did anyone at the White House or DOD attempt to scope or limit the degree to which DOD or DOD personnel cooperated with congressional investigations into the Jan. 6 attacks?

20. In the past year, we have seen menacing and/or violent protests at the U.S. Capitol, as well as state capitols and government buildings (e.g., Michigan). Is the Department of Defense adequately prepared to respond to threats beyond the U.S. Capitol?

21. According to the AP, an internal DoD timeline states that Vice President Mike Pence urgently called you at 4:08 p.m. Pence said the Capitol was not secure and he asked military leaders for a deadline for securing the building, according to the AP. Clear the Capitol, Pence demanded. Was it unusual for you to receive any such order (or however you would like to characterize it) from the vice president who is not in the chain of command? Why were you receiving such communications from the vice president but not from the president?

Background: On Jan. 6, Miller also released a statement saying, Chairman Milley and I just spoke separately with the Vice President and with Speaker Pelosi, Leader McConnell, Senator Schumer and Representative Hoyer about the situation at the U.S. Capitol. Reporters noted that absent from the list of individuals was Trump.

For former Acting Attorney General Rosen:

1. Can you state on what occasions you spoke to President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, or Chief of Staff Mark Meadows about the events of Jan. 6, from that day until you left office? How would you characterize those conversations?

2. What steps were taken to preserve documents related to the Jan. 6 events, including documents in the custody of DOJ, other agencies, or the White House? If no steps were taken, why not?

3. In the aftermath of the attack, did anyone at the White House or DOJ attempt to scope or limit the degree to which DOJ personnel cooperated with congressional investigations into the Jan. 6 attacks?

4. It has been reported that a Justice Department lawyer, Jeffrey Clark, devised a plan with former President Trump to oust you from your position as acting attorney general and to put pressure on Georgia state lawmakers to overturn that states election results. Other Justice department lawyers apparently made a pact to resign in a bid to protect your job, and reportedly you met with Trump and Clark in the White House, where the president pressed you to appoint special counsels to look into false voter fraud claims. What can you tell us about these conversations, and about the presidents intentions?

5. When you reminded President Trump that the Justice Department found no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, what did he say?

6. You were reportedly concerned that Clark, the Justice Department lawyer, believed false conspiracy theories about the election, and that he was acting on that information. What prompted those concerns?

7. It was also reported that when Trump was considering replacing you in order to pursue false claims of voter fraud, that he wanted the Justice Department to ask the Supreme Court to invalidate Bidens victory. Can you characterize the nature of that request, and the reasoning and justification the president, Clark, or others involved in the discussion used?

8. Were you aware that former interim U.S. attorney Michael Sherwin was at the Ellipse and walked alongside rally participants to the Capitol on Jan. 6th? If so, when did you become aware? Was he acting within the scope of his authority?

Editors Note: You can read more about the Defense Departments public timeline and what it appears to have omitted here.

Read more from the original source:
Investigating Jan. 6 Key Unanswered Questions for Congress and Media to Ask - Just Security

Adam Zivo: Progressives are now the ones ignoring pandemic science – National Post

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Rather than trivializing COVID, they tend to catastrophize it

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

After over a year of uncertainty and sacrifice, the pandemic is finally coming to an end. Most people are hopeful, but there is a sizable contingent of progressives who see lockdowns as an expression of their political identity and continue to advocate for harsh restrictions, even when theyre not necessary. As Canada completes its vaccination campaign and reopens its economy, it will be important to curtail this groups influence.

Excessive partisanship has been one of this pandemics great tragedies, consistently undermining evidence-based policy-making to everyones detriment. Attention has been focused on how conservatives tend to underestimate the risks of COVID-19, but data shows that progressives are subject to their own biases, as well. Rather than trivializing COVID, they tend to catastrophize it.

If you want a concrete example of progressive bias, consider that progressives tend to grossly overestimate how often COVID-19 infections result in hospitalization. In the United States, a recent Gallup survey showed that only 10 per cent of Democrats correctly guessed the hospitalization rate, compared to 26 per cent of Republicans.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

To be fair, most people overestimated the hospitalization rate, regardless of where they fell on the political spectrum, with a majority thinking that the virus hospitalizes at least 20 per cent of its victims (the actual number is between one and five per cent). However, after accounting for this, Democrats still have a noticeable habit of exaggerating the dangers. Similarly, Democrats were more likely to overestimate the risk to young people.

Though most people tend to overestimate risks, these numbers suggest that Americans on the left are more likely to overestimate the risks posed by the pandemic, and this can be clearly seen in their policy preferences. Research that specifically examines progressive biases in Canada is lacking, but its possible to make extrapolations.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

A study published in the Canadian Journal of Political Science last May suggested that Canadians are less divided about COVID-19, owing to the consensus among our political leaders about the virus dangers, but that partisanship still affects political assessments related to COVID. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the progressive bias we see south of the border has at least some impact on left-leaning Canadians.

The existence of this progressive bias can be partially attributed to Trumpian politics. Presiding over a national emergency that he lacked the leadership skills to manage, U.S. President Donald Trump politicized the pandemic, minimizing its dangers and pulling it into the muck of Americas culture wars.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Taking the bait, Americans pulled back into their partisan camps, reflexively supporting or opposing pandemic restrictions based on how they felt about Trump. For many progressives, supporting public health restrictions became a partisan necessity.

This is a legacy that has continued post-Trump, as the pandemic is still a useful wedge issue for many politicians. In Florida, for example, Republican state senators blocked legislation that would have prohibited schools from banning vaccinated teachers from working. Pandering to the worst of their base, the senators legitimized dangerous conspiracy theories insinuating that vaccinated individuals pose a health risk to those around them.

In this context, its no surprise that some progressives have been committed to seeing the worst in things, despite evidence to the contrary. Research has shown that, with appropriate precautions, in-school learning may be safe. Though returning kids to school is contentious, it is at least worth discussing, especially given that 70 per cent of youth have reported deteriorating mental health due to remote learning and isolation.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Instead, parents who support reopening schools report being ridiculed and silenced; teachers unions in Massachusetts and Washington state have even gone as far as to accuse those who want to reopen schools of being white supremacists. Instead of allowing constructive debate, some progressive school administrators preoccupy themselves with hygiene theatre: reopening schools is off-limits, but investment in extravagant sanitation infrastructure, such as UV disinfection units, is seen as perfectly reasonable.

Other examples of bad policies include restricting outdoor activities (such as closing beaches and playgrounds) and pushing for outdoor mask usage, despite overwhelming evidence showing that outdoor transmission is incredibly rare. While the rise of more dangerous variants has complicated risk calculations, their impact seems overblown. Outdoor activities remain safe, continue to account for a small minority of new cases and ought to be exempt from onerous public health restrictions.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Progressive hygiene theatre also includes extending lockdowns beyond their shelf life and stigmatizing jurisdictions that carefully open up early. Just look at the widespread condemnation, including accusations of neanderthal thinking by President Joe Biden, after Texas lifted its pandemic restrictions. Despite all the progressive rhetoric, cases have continued to drop in the Lone Star State.

This type of hyper-vigilance was useful earlier in the pandemic. When health-care systems were buckling and the virus wasnt well understood, being overly cautious was the prudent thing to do. In retrospect, we know that it was silly to Lysol our groceries, but when in doubt, its sometimes better to be safe than sorry.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Conservative misconceptions about mask efficacy, vaccine safety, asymptomatic transmission, fatality rates and so on were the danger at that time, as they undermined public health compliance when it was needed the most. But now, the situation has changed.

As things return to normal, it will be important to ensure that reopening plans are governed by science, rather than fear. It will be crucial to find ways to communicate with people who feel the need, consciously or not, to cultivate the pessimism that has provided so many doomers with easy moral, social and political capital.

Thankfully, relative to Americans, Canadians arent as bitterly divided by political tribe. And in Canada, there is not such a clear divide between the restrictions imposed by provincial governments of different political stripes.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Ontario and Manitoba, which are both run by Conservative governments, have tried to impose unscientific, overreaching restrictions on outdoor activities: Ontario temporarily closed playgrounds, while Manitoba continues to push for more outdoor mask usage. Meanwhile, British Columbias NDP government has been notably laissez-faire about outdoor dining. Compared to the United States, its the opposite of what youd expect.

Were also not as far down the road with vaccinations as the Americans are, with many parts of the country still in the tail end of a third wave. Relative to the U.S., our experiences are behind schedule. Progressive over-vigilance is not a major problem for us yet, but its likely something well have to start grappling with in the coming weeks and months. Maybe a successful American reopening will nip that in the bud, but, if not, its better to start thinking about solutions now rather than later.

National Post

The big issues are far from settled. Sign up for the NP Comment newsletter,NP Platformed the cure for cancel culture.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Here is the original post:
Adam Zivo: Progressives are now the ones ignoring pandemic science - National Post

Progressives to Corporations: If You Want to Keep Workers, Pay Living Wages – Truthout

Pushing back on the right-wing narrative about the reason for real or perceived labor shortages in some markets nationwide, progressives on Friday told corporations that if they want to hire more people, theyll need to start paying better wages.

Soon after the Labor Department released its April jobs report, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce blamed last months weak employment growth on the existence of a $300 weekly supplemental jobless benefit and began urging lawmakers to eliminate the federally enhanced unemployment payments that were extended through early September when congressional Democrats passed President Joe Bidens American Rescue Plan.

No. We dont need to end [the additional] $300 a week in emergency unemployment benefits that workers desperately need, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in response to the grumbles of the nations largest business lobbying group. We need to end starvation wages in America.

If $300 a week is preventing employers from hiring low-wage workers theres a simple solution, Sanders added. Raise your wages. Pay decent benefits.

According to the Chambers analysis, the extra $300 unemployment insurance (UI) benefit results in roughly one in four recipients taking home more pay than they earned working.

In response to that claim, Sanders staff director Warren Gunnels said: If one in four recipients are making more off unemployment than they did working, thats not an indictment of $300 a week in UI benefits. Its an indictment of corporations paying starvation wages.

Raise your wages and benefits or flip your own damn burgers and sweep your own damn floors, Gunnels added.

Other progressives like former labor secretary Robert Reich and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) also chimed in.

We do not have a shortage of willing workers in this country, Morris Pearl of the Patriotic Millionaires said in a Friday afternoon statement responding to the Chamber. We have a shortage of employers who are willing to pay workers enough to live.

Claiming that todays disappointing jobs report is a result of expanded unemployment insurance is nothing more than a cruel tactic to pressure the administration into helping companies that they represent to continue to underpay and exploit their workforce, Pearl continued. Our leaders are supposed to be helping to increase wages for low paid workers, not helping employers to keep wages down.

Instead of blaming struggling workers, Pearl continued, large corporations that do not pay their employees a liveable wage should take this moment to self-reflect. Maybe just maybe paying their workers more than starvation wages would incentivize workers to reenter the workforce.

Writing for Jacobin earlier this week, Sandy Barnard noted that another overlooked factor is the increased morbidity rates among food and agricultural workers, which increased more than any other occupation during the Covid-19 pandemic, according to a recent study from the University of CaliforniaSan Francisco.

Living, breathing people have decided they do not want to risk their lives for $7.25 per hour and no health benefits, Barnard wrote.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) responded to the Chambers call for an end to enhanced unemployment benefits by arguing that the interests of big business are at war with the interests of the working class.

They will spend millions of dollars to take $300 a [week] away from you and your family, to force you to work for them for pennies, she added. Their greed has no bounds.

Read the original post:
Progressives to Corporations: If You Want to Keep Workers, Pay Living Wages - Truthout

Progressives want to go bigger than Biden on free school meals – POLITICO

While the last iteration of the Senate bill did not have any co-sponsors, the effort has recently picked up steam. Sanders now has nine co-sponsors including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). The House bill, sponsored by Omar, has also garnered support from Democrats in the House. Neither bill has any Republican backers.

It's one of those things that's been really surprising to me, as a child who's known real hunger, to see that there are folks here in the United States who are experiencing it, Omar told POLITICO.

The lefts pitch for universal free meals comes after a year of relaxed rules that have allowed schools to serve free meals to all students, regardless of whether they normally qualify for help. It was one way the Agriculture Department responded to the crisis last spring.

At the end of April, the Biden administration announced that schools across the country will be able to keep serving free meals to all students through June 2022 a major expansion of access.

School leaders and some anti-hunger advocates are increasingly making the case that the policy should continue after the pandemic because it is easier to administer, increases revenue for school nutrition programs and reduces stigma for children from low-income households who need help. School nutrition programs have been hammered by school closures and hybrid schedules during the pandemic.

Whats in the bill: The bill, named the Universal School Meals Program Act, is the same as the measure introduced in the last session and would remove reduced-price meals. It would make all meals given in schools free to all students regardless of income or whether their families participate in other safety net programs. It would also increase reimbursement rates to schools for each free meal.

The measure would also provide an incentive of up to 30 cents per meal to schools that get 25 percent of their food from local sources. The bill would define that as food produced within state lines or within 250 miles of the school or school district.

Such an incentive would provide local farmers with up to $3.3 billion in additional income per year and increase local food sales by up to 28 percent, proponents of the bill predict.

The bill would also mandate that schools stop collecting and assigning school meal debt and would have the Agriculture secretary establish a program to reimburse outstanding debt. The goal is to stop lunch shaming, where schools try to collect owed debt like withholding grades, canceling school dance privileges or marking students with an I Need Lunch Money stamp tactics that have sparked broad public outrage.

The bill would also increase the payments of Summer EBT and expand the Child and Adult Care Food Program.

Is the price right? Omars bill does not allocate any specific funding and has not received a score from the Congressional Budget Office. The potential high price tag of a universal free meals program has received criticism from Republicans, including Senate Agriculture ranking member Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas.

School meals programs cost nearly $14 billion in fiscal year 2020, down nearly $19 billion in 2019, largely because fewer meals were served when schools were closed.

But Omar said the need for providing meals is too great to be concerned about the cost, though she expects it wont break the bank.

When you make programs universal, you get rid of a lot of administrative costs, Omar said

Comparing Biden's plan: Biden recently announced his American Families Plan as the second half of his suite of infrastructure proposals. In the package, he urges Congress to expand some nutritional assistance programs.

However, Bidens proposal, which would need congressional approval, is more limited in scale. Biden suggests investing $17 billion to expand free meals for students by increasing the reimbursement rates for schools participating in the Community Eligibility Provision, which allows high-poverty schools to provide meals free of charge to all of their students. It would also make far more elementary schools eligible for universal free meals.

Bidens plan also proposes making the summer Pandemic EBT program permanent. But it would remain only available to those already receiving free and reduced-price meals.

Whats next: Proponents of the bill say the goal is to introduce the measure now to push efforts to go further in the next reconciliation package. But they are not ruling out other options, such with a stand-alone bill or child nutrition reauthorization.

See the original post:
Progressives want to go bigger than Biden on free school meals - POLITICO